BY HARRY SCHNEIDERMAN AND MELVIN M. FAGEN

REVIEW OF THE YEAR 56951

BY HARRY SCHNEIDERMAN AND MELVIN M. FAGEN2

INTRODUCTION

Whereas, during the two preceding years, the attentionof Jewish communities throughout the world was focussed,almost to the exclusion of their own interests, upon theirsister-community in Germany., there were signs during thepast year that, while Germany continued to be their chiefinterest, Jewish communities were giving increasing atten-tion to their local concerns. This tendency was a resultchiefly of two factors. On the one hand, was the melancholyrealization that the Jewish situation in Germany was nota temporary aberration of a civilized people driven tounconscionable excesses by a spirit of desperation, but thedeliberate, premeditated policy of a ruling clique ruthlesslyto exterminate German Jewry,—a policy springing from amaniacal adherence to a fanatical dogma of race-national-ism. On the other hand, it became increasingly evidentduring the past year that malignant forces which had beenunleashed by Nazidom were threatening the welfare ofJews in a number of countries outside of Germany.

Because of the recognition of these two tragic facts,Jewish communities outside of Germany, while continuingto help their brethren in that country, made more intenseefforts to strengthen their community life and to resist theonslaught of the forces of intolerance, malice, and hatredwhich were emboldened by the Nazi example to becomemore vocal, more aggressive, and more ruthless than ingenerations past. In this struggle, the Jews were encouraged,in some countries, by the sympathy and cooperation of

1 The period covered by this review is from July 1, 1934 to June 30, 1935. It isbased on reports in the Jewish and the general press of the United States and a numberof foreign countries.1 The introduction and the section dealing with the United States are by Mr.Schneid-erman; the remainder of the article, dealing with other countries, is by Mr. Fagen.

135

136 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK

Christian leaders, who realized that the human sacrifice ofwhich the German Jews are the victims is the very negationof Christianity, and who watched with amazement andindignation the shameless efforts of the race-nationalists inGermany to subjugate the church.

Thus, while Jewish communal life resumed a more orless normal course, yet it was apparent that, in manyquarters, the feeling was spreading that anti-Jewish forces,unprecedently powerful, pernicious, and unscrupulous, wereat work, and that on the outcome of the struggle againstthose enemies depends to a large extent the fate of futuregenerations of Jews.

THE UNITED STATES

In the United States there were many signs, during theperiod under review, that large sections of the Americanpeople are alive to the fact that Nazism is a betrayal ofprinciples upon which our institutions rest. The beginningof the period coincides with the time of the "Bloody week-end" in Germany when scores of persons suspected of beingopposed to the ruling camarilla were murdered. Theseevents horrified the American public and, for a time, effec-tively silenced Nazi sympathizers and agitators, who neverfully recovered such influence as they had previously had.In liberal circles, the events in Germany were regarded ashaving presaged the doom of the extreme Nazi wing andthe passing of control of the country to the Reichswehr,to be followed by milder policies in various directions,including the anti-Jewish program. Although subsequentevents proved this hopeful prognosis false, yet the unfavor-able impression made by the blood-purge on Americanpublic opinion was virtually permanent.

The Nazi regime was condemned at a convention of theWisconsin State Federation of Labor, meeting at Racinein July 1934, and by the Connecticut State Federation ofLabor, meeting at New Britain in September, which resolvedto boycott German-made goods "until the German Govern-ment recognizes the right of the people of Germany to

REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5695 137

organize into trade unions and ceases its persecution of theJewish people." After hearing an impassioned address byWalter Citrine, Secretary of the British Trade Union Con-gress and an official of the International Federation of TradeUnions, the American Federation of Labor, at its annualconvention in San Francisco, in October 1934, enthusi-astically reaffirmed its pledge of the preceding year to boycottGerman goods and services, and decided to establish aChest for the Liberation of the Workers of Europe. Similaraction was taken by state and local units of the Federation.In August, the University of Delaware announced that ithad cancelled plans to send a group of its students to visitGermany for study. In September, a nation-wide congressagainst war and fascism took place in Chicago, attended by3,500 delegates from anti-fascist organizations all over thecountry. In October, the Overseers of Harvard Universityrejected a scholarship for study in Germany offered by analumnus, Ernst F. S. Hanfstaengl, confidential aide ofHitler. In explanation of this action, Dr. James BryantConant, President of the University, declared: "We areunwilling to accept a gift from one who has been so closelyassociated with the leadership of a political party whichhas inflicted damage on the universities of Germany throughmeasures which have struck at principles we believe to befundamental to universities throughout the world."

When, in August, rumors were current that the UnitedStates Government was contemplating a loan to Germany,the Chicago Committee for the Defense of Human RightsAgainst Nazism secured 10,000 signatures to a petitionprotesting against such a loan, on the ground that theUnited States "cannot afford in any way to seem to approveof a government that persecutes and kills scholars, Pacifists,Socialists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, women and laboralmost indiscriminately." Similar steps were taken by theLabor Committee for Jewish Affairs, and by the AmericanJewish Congress and affiliated bodies.

In April 1935, a mass-meeting held at the Hippodromein New York, under the auspices of the Non-SectarianAnti-Nazi League, adopted a resolution urging the Leagueof Nations to impose economic sanctions ag-ainst Germanybecause of her violations of the Covenant of the League.


In the meantime, Senator W. Warren Barbour of NewJersey had introduced in the United States Senate, onJanuary 21, 1935, a bill providing that the Secretary ofState be "directed not to enter into any reciprocal agree-ments with any nation engaging in religious or racialpersecution." A similar bill was introduced in the Houseof Representatives, on January 3, 1935 by the Hon. EmanuelCeller.

The organized boycott movement led by the Non-Sec-tarian Anti-Nazi League was continued during the yearunder review. Characteristic activities of the Leagueincluded prevailing upon two large banks in New YorkCity to sever connections with a Nazi-controlled bank inDanzig; securing 10,000 signatures to a petition presentedto nine leading colleges urging them to refrain from pur-chasing books and supplies made in Germany; agitatingagainst participation by firms in the fur industry in theannual fur auction sales in Leipzig, Germany; and persuad-ing department stores to join those already boycottingGerman goods. This League also promoted an internationalconference in London in November, which resulted in theestablishment of the World Non-Sectarian Anti-NaziCouncil to Champion Human Rights.

The boycott movement was also supported by theAmerican Jewish Congress which was active in bringingabout the prosecution of firms which violated a New YorkState law forbidding the destruction, removal or conceal-ment of the mark of origin of foreign goods, and by theAnti-Nazi Minute Men of America. Squads of membersof the latter organization picketed the premises of businesseshandling German-made goods.

The Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League and the AmericanJewish Congress were active also in efforts to oppose theparticipation of American athletes in the Olympic Games,which are scheduled to take place in Berlin in 1936. InJune 1934, the American Olympics Committee had decidedto postpone official acceptance of the German invitationto participate, and at its request, Avery Brundage, itspresident, went to Germany in August to investigate onthe spot whether Jewish athletes were being discriminatedagainst by the Reich. In September, Mr. Brundage returned


and, on the strength of his favorable report, the AmericanOlympics Committee decided that American athletesparticipate in the Berlin Games.

Following the decision of the American Olympics Com-mittee, the American Jewish Congress asked the Board ofGovernors of the Amateur Athletic Union to review thesituation on the ground that the assurances given by theNazi authorities to the American Olympics Committeewere not in accordance with the facts. At the conventionof the Amateur Athletic Union in December the matterdid not come up for discussion. This unexpected outcomewas subsequently explained by Charles L. Ornstein, amember of the American Olympics Committee and of theexecutive committee of the American Athletic Union whostated that, had the question been raised, the conventionwould have undoubtedly supported its president, Mr.Brundage, who favored acceptance of the German invita-tion, with the result that it would not be possible to raisethe question again, and the formal acceptance by the Amer-ican Olympics Committee of the German invitation wouldhave been binding on the A.A.U. With these considerationsin mind, the fourteen Jewish delegates had agreed amongthemselves not to bring the matter up at the convention,thus leaving in force the resolution adopted by the A.A.U.at Pittsburgh in 1933, which called upon theAmerican OlympicAssociation to give notice to the appropriate internationaland German authorities that American athletic organiza-tions will not participate in the games in Berlin "until andunless the position of the German Olympic Committee, ofthe Organizing Committee of Berlin, and the GermanGovernment is so changed in fact as well as in theory as toboth permit and encourage German athletes of Jewish faithor heritage to train, prepare for, and participate in, theOlympic Games of 1936." Mr. Ornstein pointed out thatthe question remains open and can be again brought up atthe convention of the A.A.U., to be held in New York Cityin 1935.

Along with all liberal elements, American Jews watchedwith interest events in the Saar and awaited with anxietythe outcome of the plebiscite on January 13, 1935 whichwas to decide whether that territory remain under the con-


trol of the League of Nations, be ceded to France, or bereturned to Germany. Opinion in Jewish circles wasdivided on the value of the Franco-German declarationearly in December 1934 indicating that Germany hadagreed, in the event the plebiscite was in her favor, toguarantee the equality of all inhabitants of the Saar forone year.

A considerable stir was created by the discussion of thestatus of those American citizens who returned to the Saarto vote in the plebiscite. In a letter to the Hon. CordellHull, Secretary of State, Mr. Maurice B. Gladstone, anattorney of New York City, requested the State Depart-ment to warn such citizens that they were jeopardizingtheir status as American citizens under the Presumptionof Expatriation Act (Section 17, Title 8, U. S. Code). Insome quarters, the demand was expressed that such personsbe deprived of their citizenship, and a bill providing forsuch action was introduced in the House of Representativesby the Hon. Samuel Dickstein of New York. This sug-gestion did not, however, elicit the support of any respon-sible Jewish organizations.

The raising of funds for the relief of Jews in, and refugeesfrom, Germany continued to enlist much interest. It willbe recalled that, in March 1934, the Joint DistributionCommittee and the American Palestine Campaign announcedthat they would conduct a joint effort to raise $3,250,000for the work of both organizations. A nation-wide campaign,with ramifications in no less than 247 cities of the UnitedStates, followed. In May 1934, an American ChristianCommittee for German Refugees had been set up to cooperatein the campaign, enlisting the active efforts of a numberof eminent Christians, lay and clerical.

At the end of 1934, the Joint Distribution Committeereported that it had allotted during that year a total of$1,290,000. Of this amount, $453,000 was contributed forthe program of the Zentral Ausschuss fur Hilfe und Aufbau(Central Committee for Relief and Reconstruction) inGermany; $516,000 for aid to refugees committees, emigra-tion organizations, etc., in various countries; and $3,21,000for relief, constructive work, and emergency aid in EasternEuropean countries and Austria. The same report stated


that, in all activities dealing with Jews in Germany and therefugees, the Joint Distribution Committee had taken themost prominent part and had contributed, in all, the largestaggregate sums for programs of settlement, emigration,retraining for new occupations, and relief, whether inGermany itself, in France, Holland, Czechoslovakia, orother countries. A total well in excess of $1,400,000 hadbeen made available by the Joint Distribution Committeefor this work during 1933 and 1934. It was pointed outfurther by Mr. Joseph C. Hyman, Secretary of the JointDistribution Committee, that, despite the pressure beingexerted to enforce the departure of Jews from Germany,it seems practically impossible for any but a relativelysmall number to leave Germany in the next few years, andthat, consequently, the need for helping the Jews in Ger-many will become greater and greater, parallel with increas-ing difficulties of emigration and mounting persecution inGermany. In June 1935, the co-chairmen of the UnitedJewish Appeal announced that $1,000,000 of the $3,250,000being sought, had been raised. A considerable part of thefunds being raised were being used to assist Jews fromGermany to settle in Palestine.

From the point of view of affording relief to strickenJewish communities abroad, Germany was not the onlyconcern of the Jews of America. Through the Joint Dis-tribution Committee and other agencies, they continued tohelp their brethren in other lands, especially Poland. Thewretched economic condition of the Jews of that countryprofoundly agitated the American Jewish community dur-ing the past year, especially when, in December 1934, itwas reported in the press that a Jewish deputy in the PolishSejm had declared that sixty percent of the Jews in almostall cities in the land were compelled to appeal for charityin order to exist. While on a visit to the United States inJune 1935, Dr. Bernhard Kahn, European director of theJoint Distribution Committee, confirmed this statement,adding that the economic status of the remaining third"is exceedingly precarious, due to rapidly increasingunemployment, excessive taxation and economic discrimina-tion." Soup kitchens are again making their appearance.One-third of the 160,000 children who attend Jewish schools


come to school hungry. As a result, the Joint DistributionCommittee, which had suspended general relief activitiesin Poland several years ago, deciding to devote its funds toreconstructive work, found it imperative during the pastyear, to undertake feeding of children and other direct aid.On June 17, 1935, the annual convention of the Federationof Polish Jews authorized its executive committee "shouldit find it necessary to do so," to start an independentcampaign for funds for the relief of the Jews of Poland.

That the impoverishment of Polish Jewry is partlytraceable to governmental policies was the general opinionof observers. This view was the basis of a resolution adoptedby an extraordinary conference in January 1935, in NewYork City, under the auspices of the Federation of PolishJews. The resolution embodied an appeal to the Polishgovernment to employ Jews in public works and to abolishdiscriminatory taxation.

Previously, in September 1934, when, at the sessionsof the Assembly of the League of Nations, Poland's repre-sentative, Foreign Minister Joseph Beck, 'announced that"pending the bringing into force of a general and uniformsystem for the protection of minorities," his governmentwill "refuse . . . all cooperation with international organiza-tions in the matter of the supervision of the application byPoland of a system of minority protection," concern forthe effect of this declaration on the Jews of Poland wasexpressed in some Jewish quarters. It was pointed out,however, that Mr. Beck had given assurances that theannounced policy presaged no infringement on the rightsof Jews. In a statement to the press, on September 19, Mr.Morris D. Waldman, Secretary of the American JewishCommittee, pointed out that, since minority provisions ofthe treaty with Poland cover many groups in that country,such as Germans, Ukrainians, and Lithuanians, as well asJews, the problems presented by Poland's action are notsolely, or even chiefly, of Jewish concern, but touch uponinternational relations involving many countries. In con-clusion, Mr. Waldman warned against the creation of theimpression that Poland's action is in any way an attackon the Jewish minority in Poland.

The death, on May 12, 1935, of Marshal Joseph Pilsudski,


head of the Polish government since the establishment ofthe Republic, was regarded in American Jewish circles asan added misfortune for Polish Jewry, the belief beinggeneral that the Marshal had exercised a quiet but powerfulrestraining influence on anti-Jewish elements in Poland.Messages of sympathy were dispatched to the Ambassadorof Poland at Washington by the American Jewish Com-mittee and the Federation of Polish Jews of America.

Considerable dismay was created in American Jewishcircles by disquieting reports from Austria, which indicatedthat insofar as the Jews of the country were concerned thegovernment was following the example of Nazi Germany.This situation engaged the attention of both the AmericanJewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee.Early in December 1934, the former organization submitteda petition to the Austrian Minister at Washington enumerat-ing discriminatory measures and charging that, by coun-tenancing them, the Austrian Government was tacitlynullifying those provisions of the Treaty of St. Germainbetween Austria and the Allies in which the equality ofrights of minorities with the majority population waspledged.

At the annual meeting of the American Jewish Com-mittee, on January 6, 1935, the Executive Committeereported that since the accession of Dr. Kurt Schuschniggto the chancellorship of Austria, it had been "forced to takenotice of the apparently growing discrimination againstJewish professional men and business people which isexpressed in practice if not by legislation." The reportwent on to say: "In spite of the disturbing reports of variousdiscriminations against Jews, we have very recently receivedsomewhat reassuring advices from a highly authoritativeand influential source which lead us to hope that in spiteof the Nazi pressure on the public authorities in that coun-try, the position of the Jews will not be adversely affected."

Roumania also drew the attention of American Jewryduring the past year. In August 1934, it was reportedthat the Jewish population of Roumania was in fear thata national labor law, enacted by Parliament in April, wouldbe used to expel Jews, especially such as have not beenable to acquire Roumanian citizenship, from employment


in certain industries. In reply to a letter of inquiry sent tothe Roumanian legation in Washington by the UnitedRoumanian Jews of America, the Charge d'Affaires of theLegation gave assurances that the law in question was notintended to be prejudicial to Roumanian Jews.

But not only political conditions in Roumania werewatched with concern by American Jewry. In that country,and in Latvia, Lithuania and Austria, as in Poland, thematerial sufferings of the Jewish population engaged theattention of the American community, again through theagency of the Joint Distribution Committee. In the reportof Mr. Hyman, Secretary of that organization, covering itsactivities during 1934, he stated that the American JointReconstruction Foundation (supported jointly by the JointDistribution Committee and the Jewish ColonizationAssociation) had, during 1934, granted new constructivecredits to Jews in these countries amounting in all to$300,000. At the same time, the improved condition of theJews of Russia, largely as a result of the work of the Amer-ican Joint Agricultural Foundation (Agrojoint), had relievedthe Joint Distribution Committee of any large expendituresin tha t country.

In connection with Russia, it is interesting to note that ,in the report submitted by the Executive Committee ofthe American Jewish Committee at its twenty-eighth annualmeeting on January 6, 1935, attention was called to thefact that there were still in force in that country restrictionson the free exercise of religion which made "the prospectsof the very survival of religion extremely dark." TheCommittee expressed the hope, however, that "in the courseof the diplomatic relations with the Soviet governmentwhich have been ushered in by the recognition of thatgovernment by the United States, our government mayfind an appropriate occasion to impress upon the Sovietgovernment that the American people, of all creeds, wouldcordially welcome a more humane attitude toward religiousfunctionaries and a more liberal policy toward religiouseducation."

A conference of Jews from various countries at Geneva,in August 1934, also aroused considerable discussion inAmerican Jewish circles. This conference was reported


in the American press under somewhat sensational head-lines which referred to a world Jewish parliament and super-government. These reports evoked a statement from theAmerican Jewish Committee to the effect that that body,as well as other important organizations, was not par-ticipating in the Geneva Conference which could not there-fore "truthfully be described as representative of the opinionof Jews of the world or as expressing the view-point of Jewishcitizens of the United States." In a statement to the JewishDaily Bulletin, Mr. Alfred M. Cohen, president of the B'naiB'rith, dissociated that organization also from the GenevaConference.

This conference, which reaffirmed its decision of 1932and 1933 to establish a world Jewish congress, reopened thediscussion of that question which had taken place inprevious years. (See Vol. 34, pp. 29-31, and Vol. 36, pp.240-241). In October 1934, the American Jewish Congressaffirmed the decision of the Geneva Conference of 1934 toestablish a world Jewish congress to be convened in 1935,and,also decided to launch a campaign for the organizationof national democratic elections throughout the UnitedStates in April 1935, for an enlarged American JewishCongress and delegates to the proposed world JewishCongress. The discussion of this matter in Jewish circlesagain made manifest a sharp division of opinion. Severalinfluential persons connected with the American JewishCongress opposed the world project. At the semi-annualconference of the Seaboard Zionist Region, held in October1934, in Baltimore, Mr. Louis Lipsky, one of the vice-presidents of the American Jewish Congress, stated that aworld Jewish congress is not essential for the protectionof Jews in various countries, that the functions proposedfor the world congress could be performed as well by acentral executive committee with headquarters at Geneva,and that the controversy on this question, if allowed tocontinue, will destroy what has been thus far achieved inthe way of cooperation in the upbuilding of Palestine andin measures on behalf of victims of Nazi persecution.

The National Council of Jewish Women, the B'nai B'rith,and the Labor Committee for Jewish Affairs (organized inFebruary 1934), which, together with other national


organizations, had been invited by the American JewishCongress, to participate in formulating the arrangementsfor the democratic elections, declined to do so, while theAmerican Jewish Committee which was invited by theJewish Congress to a conference "to explore the possibilitiesof arriving at understanding . . . on the problems outlined,"declined to join in any conference in which the proposalfor a world Jewish congress was to be the subject for con-sideration, while agreeing to discuss other ways of securingcloser cooperation between organizations. At the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Committee, on January 6,1935, the American Jewish Committee made public "astatement of some of the many considerations which haveall along shaped the attitude of the Committee toward theestablishment of a general Jewish organization in the UnitedStates based on a plebiscite, or of a world Jewish congressor any other form of international Jewish organization."The position taken by the Executive Committee wasunanimously approved by the Annual Meeting, which wasaddressed by Mr. Neville Laski, President of the Board ofJewish Deputies of Great Britain, who took a strong positionagainst the proposed world congress. (For the completetext of the Committee's statement, and of Mr. Laski'saddress, the reader is referred to the Annual Report of theCommittee published in the present volume).

Subsequently, the American Jewish Congress announcedthat it had decided to postpone the elections scheduled forApril 28, 1935, and that the advisability of these electionsand of establishing a world congress would be discussedat a convention to be held in Philadelphia in March 1935.The convention reaffirmed approval of the world bodywithout setting a date for its establishment, and approvedthe holding of democratic elections in 1937 for an enlargedAmerican Jewish Congress, with the proviso that one-third of the delegates shall be chosen by national Jewishorganizations.

Palestine vied with Germany for the chief place in theinterest of American Jewry, largely because of the realiza-tion that, under present conditions at least, the Holy Landprovidentially offers practically the only haven for Jewishfugitives from Germany.


At the beginning of the period under review, in July1934, the Zionist Organization of America held its thirty-seventh annual convention in Atlantic City, N. J. TheOrganization adopted resolutions calling upon its membersto participate more actively in general communal affairs,favoring a seat for Palestine in the League of Nations,recognizing among Soviet officials a growing sympathytoward efforts to procure freedom for Zionists in Russia,and calling upon the British Government to modify itsrestrictive immigration policy in Palestine so as to renderit a haven for a greater number of European Jews, and toopen Transjordania for agricultural settlement and indus-trial development by Jews.

In September 1934, the Administrative Council of theZionist Organization of America adopted a resolutionopposing the proposed legislative council in Palestine.Opposition to the proposed council and demand for a moreliberal immigration policy were voiced by a Zionist rallyin Chicago in October 1934. In the same month, thetwentieth annual convention of Hadassah, the Women'sZionist Organization, at Washington, was marked by thebroadcasting, on an international radio hook-up, of theceremonies attending the laying of the cornerstone of theRothschild-Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital andMedical Center, the first institution of its kind in Palestine.The organization also adopted resolutions opposing theestablishment of a legislative council, and demanding anincrease in the number of certificates for labor immigration"commensurate with the recognized present economiccondition of the country."

A notable event was the meeting in New York City,early in January 1935, of the Administrative Committeeof the Jewish Agency,—the first time this body met onAmerican soil. The Committee adopted resolutions calling

' upon the Jews of the world "to intensify their efforts forspeeding the upbuilding of the Jewish National Home,"and approving the stand taken by the Agency Executivewith regard to the proposed legislative council for Palestineand in relation to restricted immigration. The view wasexpressed that "a legislative council at this time wouldprove menacing to the interests of the Jewish National


Home as well as the larger interests of Palestine." Thenumber of immigration certificates so far. granted by thePalestine government was declared to have "failed toenable the country to catch up with the shortage of Jewishlabor which remains one of the most serious problems."

What is likely to prove a very significant event in thehistory of American effort for Palestine upbuilding wasthe national conference on Palestine held in Washingtonon January 20 and 21, 1935. This conference, which wasan effort to assemble all forces, Zionist and non-Zionist,desirous of aiding in Palestine reconstruction, was calledunder the auspices of a number of national organizations.Probably the most important decision of the conferencewas to set up an expert commission to survey economicconditions in Palestine and prepare a program for coordinat-ing the work of the various agencies active in the economicfield.

Other important meetings of organizations interestedin Palestine reconstruction were the tenth anniversaryconvention (November 30, 1934) of the National LaborCommittee for Jewish Workers and Pioneers of Palestine,a t which announcement was made that the organizationhad sent over $1,000,000 to the Palestine Labor Federation(Histadruth Haovdim) for the promotion of welfare workand for the purchase of tools and materials for workers inPalestine; the fifth annual convention (December 23, 1934)of the Federation of Palestinian Jews which voiced ademand for the rehabilitation of the Palestine cities,Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias, which were sacked duringthe 1929 riots; a dinner on April 2, 1935, under the auspicesof the American Friends of the Hebrew University, incelebration of the tenth anniversary of that institution;and the annual party council of the Jewish State Party ofAmerica (June 2, 1935) which demanded immediatecolonization on crown lands in Palestine, the floating of a <public loan to promote the colonization of 100,000 Jewishfamilies on both sides of the Jordan, and the encouragementof the industrialization of Palestine by appropriate tariffsand international treaties.

Echoes of controversies which were pending in Palestineor in the world Zionist movement were heard in the United


States. Many in the American community followed withinterest the development of the revolt of the ZionistRevisionists against the World Zionist Organization whichculminated in the secession of the Revisionists from theparent body. The Zionist Revisionist Organization ofAmerica, consisting of adherents of the Revisionist policies,held their second annual conference in New York City,April 1935. The Organization adopted resolutions "to standunflinchingly by its world leadership," condemning theratification by the Zionist Actions Committee of thetransfer agreement with Nazi Germany, demanding theemployment of Jewish labor only in Jewish enterprises inPalestine, the legalization of Jewish self-defense, theaddition of Jewish contingents in the British garrison,abolition of discrimination between classes or Zionist partiesas to rights of immigration, and the application of theMandate to Transjordania as an integral part of Palestine.

The achievements for the benefit of labor of the HistadruthHaovdim (Labor Federation) in Palestine found manyadmirers in the United States who favored giving greaterinfluence to representatives of labor in the councils of theWorld Zionist Organization and in its executive agencies.In January 1935, Rabbi Edward I. Israel of Baltimorecirculated among the members of the Central Conferenceof American Rabbis a plea for their endorsement of theHistadruth. This evoked a counter-plea by a group ofrabbis, headed by Louis I. Newman of New York City,deploring the encouragement of a cleavage on class linesin Palestine, and urging the upbuilding of the country bythe cooperative effort of all classes in its economic life.In March, there came into existence the B Group of GeneralZionists, which all Zionists were invited to join who favored"the formation of a bloc at the forthcoming world ZionistCongress which will bring to an end the present intolerabledictatorship of the movement by one party." The declara-tion of this B Group, after charging the Histadruth withutilizing its control of the World Zionist Organization andthe Jewish Agency for the promotion of partisan objectives,and with fomenting a class struggle in Palestine, outlineda program which called for the upbuilding of Palestine forthe welfare of all, favored middle-class settlement as basic


for successful economy, condemned speculation in land,declared social justice cannot be achieved by labor uniontactics alone, and denounced class-hatred teaching.

T h e strength of the pro-labor sentiment in the UnitedStates was indicated in the elections which took place onJune 23, in all par ts of the United States for delegates tothe nineteenth international Zionist Congress to convenein Lucerne, Switzerland, beginning August 20, 1935.Incidentally, the voting is an index to the numerical strengthof the Zionist movement in the United States. A total of132,000 persons had bought the shekel certificates entitlingthem to vote. Of this number, 55,456 cast ballots as follows:19,005 for the general Zionist ticket; 25,149 for the LaborZionist t icket; 10,698 for the Mizrahi ticket; and 604 fortwo minor parties.

The foregoing recital is by no means a complete chronicleof the overseas interests of the American Jewish community;it deals only with the major problems in whose solutionthe community shared with the Jewries of other lands,including also those countries in which the situation of theJews demanded the aid of their brethren abroad. But theJews of America had also to deal with emergent problemsof their own. No t the least of these were those created bythe incidence of anti-Jewish movements in the UnitedStates. Aside from those manifestations of anti-Jewishprejudice with which we have become familiar becauseof their perennial occurrence, there took place duringthe past year, as in the one which preceded it, eventswhich indicated the existence of more or less organizedand systematically-conducted movements to intensify andspread anti-Jewish sentiment. Though somewhat inter-related, these movements may be considered under twoheads, namely, first, those which were direct repercussionsof events in Germany, and, second, those which, while theyacquired impetus and inspiration from the Nazi anti-Jewishpolicy, were a t tempts to apply the same scapegoat techniqueto divert public at tention from the real causes of unrest inthe United States.

The former movements were virtually confined to asmall section of the American population of German origin.I t should be noted tha t the leadership of Nazi Jew-baiting


in this country was recruited from hitherto obscure elementsof this population, and that no German-Americans of anystanding were prominently identified with these perniciousefforts to transplant the noxious weed of Nazi racialism onAmerican soil. Furthermore, while not a few of the German-language newspapers stoutly defended the existing regimein Germany, and condemned the anti-Nazi boycott, veryfew, if any, countenanced attempts on the part of Germansin America to establish here the counterpart of so-calledNational Socialism, especially its racial dogma.

During the period being reviewed, what we may callthe Nazi movement in America all but expired. Its rapiddecline was due to a number of factors, chiefly the follow-ing: 1) The "bad press" which Nazi Germany enjoyed inthe United States, owing to the unpopularity of the tenetsof Nazism, and to such excesses as the "blood-purge" ofJune 30, 1934, the assassination of Chancellor EngelbertDollfus of Austria, the efforts to muzzle the Protestantchurches and to suppress the freedom of expression of theCatholics, and, as this review is being written, the disgrace-ful anti-Jewish riots in Berlin of mid-July 1935; 2) therevelations produced by the special Congressional Com-mittee to investigate un-American activities, under theleadership of Representative John W. McCormack ofMassachusetts, an investigation which laid bare before theAmerican people activities which outraged the traditionsof fair-play and honest sportsmanship which have alwaysbeen basic in this country; 3) the open opposition of repre-sentatives of the decent and respectable German-Americanelements, in various parts of the country, such as the FranzSigel League in New York City, the German-AmericanLeague of Essex County, New Jersey, the Newark andIrvington Posts of German and Austrian War Veterans,the Friends of Truth of Cincinnati, the United GermanSocieties of Detroit, and many others, which, in one wayor another, dissociated themselves from the Nazi movement;4) the outrageous actions of the Nazis, including acts ofvandalism against shops of Jews and against synagogues,and their ludicrous efforts to inject the German issue intolocal politics in various parts of the country during theelections of November 1934; and, finally, dissension within


their own ranks which exposed the sordid struggle for powerand for control of funds, which showed that the movementwas to a great extent nothing but a "racket."

But, as the American Jewish Committee pointed out inits Annual Report, last January, the danger from Naziagitation is by no means past. "The public tactics, oftenbungling and crude, of the Nazi organization," declaredthe Committee, "are accompanied by more subtle methods,which, because of their private nature, are often impossibleto counteract." The Committee's report goes on to say:

"Within recent months, Nazi propagandists, includingdiplomatic and consular representatives of Germany,have succeeded in arranging to address private meetingsof influential clubmen and clubwomen, members of col-lege and university faculties, and the like. These meetingsare not advertised, and invitations to them are issuedto carefully selected persons whose receptivity to Nazidoctrines can be more or less relied upon. Often, notime is permitted for discussion of the speaker's remarks.From what the Committee has been able to learn, thesespeakers address themselves chiefly to efforts to justifythe anti-Jewish policies of Nazi Germany, by makingstatements which are false and misleading regardingthe number and activities of the Jews of Germany, andcasting unjustified aspersions upon their good name.It is obvious that among the members of audiences thusaddressed, many do not know the truth. Lacking anopportunity to hear the other side, these persons becomecenters for the dissemination of misinformation in theirbusiness and social circles."

But the effects of even such surreptitious agitation aresubstantially vitiated by such events in Germany as thosewhich were taking place in mid-July 1935, when this reviewwas being written.

These events will, in all likelihood, serve also to discreditother attempts to stir up, in the United States, racial andreligious antagonisms. Efforts along these lines did notmake great progress during the past year. William DudleyPelley, the pseudo-spiritualist, who had, since Hitler cameinto the saddle in Germany, published, in his Liberati on


issued in Asheville, N. C, virulent anti-Jewish diatribes,was convicted of fraudulent transactions in the sale ofstock in his various enterprises, and given a suspendedsentence; his attempts to revive his publication failed.Louis T. McFadden who, while a member of the House ofRepresentatives, occasionally spread upon the Congres-sional Record quotations from such Jew-baiting classicsas the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the "Inter-national Jew" articles in the happily defunct DearbornIndependent, was defeated when he stood for re-election,in November 1934. His attempt, thereafter, to organizean Independent Republican National Christian Committeeto have himself nominated in 1936 for President of theUnited States on a platform including the slogan "Chris-tianity Instead of Judaism," were too ludicrous to be takenseriously, and died a-borning.

The sporadic attempts to inject a Jewish issue intopolitics in connection with the November 1934 elections,and with a by-election for Mayor in Chicago in March andApril 1935, fell completely flat. The same fate met effortsto revive the Ku Klux Klan, although here and therescattered contingents of that organization burned "fierycrosses" and held "Klonvocations." At one of these meet-ings, held in Atlanta, Ga., in August 1934, announcementwas made that a nation-wide reorganization of the Klanwas afoot, for the purpose of combating un-Americanismand communism, and an invitation was extended to Amer-ican Jews and Catholics to participate. A similar invitationwas extended by a state convention of the Klan held inSeattle in September 1934. On the other hand, at a reorgan-ization meeting of the Klan in Portchester, N. Y., in thesame month, Hitler was lauded, the Roosevelt administra-tion was condemned, and Jews, Negroes, and Catholicswere vilified.

As a matter of fact, much of the so-called native Americanagitation against Jews was political in motivation, beingprompted by a desire to attack the Washington administra-tion, not directly, but by efforts to spread the baseless ideathat the policies on which the Government has embarkedto meet emergency conditions are inspired by a non-existentcabal of Jewish conspirators who, it is alleged, aim to over-


turn the existing economic system. This school of agitatorsmake a great deal of fuss abou t the number of Jews con-nected with the administrat ion, and, in order to make thisnumber more terrifying to those who have anti-Jewishprejudices, they add to the very few Jews who occupypositions of prominence a list of others who are subordinates,including m a n y who have been in service during previousadministrat ions and whose work is along the lines ofstatistical or scientific research, wi thout any direct con-nection with government policies. Finally, to make theira rgument impregnable, these propagandists pretend tha tm a n y of the non-Jewish officials are proteges, or merepuppets , of Jews.

T o w h a t ex tent this species of propaganda has impressedthose who are exposed to it, there is no means of calculating.I t is known, however, t h a t it had the effect of terrifying nota few Jews who expressed the wish t h a t all Jews in publicoffice would resign from their posts. This position wasdeplored and condemned by m a n y voices in the community.In its Annual Repor t , the American Jewish Committeereferred to those who hold this view in the following terms:"Those who hold this view evidently do not realize tha tsuch a procedure would be an admission of the false charges,or an approval of the insti tution of a racial or religiouspercentage system in connection with appoin tment to publicoffice, in the place of the tradit ional sound American prin-ciple of conferring office upon those best able to do thework, regardless of their creed or ances t ry ."

T h e communis t movement was simply explained byanother school of Jew-baiters as pa r t of a secret (.!) programof " internat ional J e w r y " to overthrow "Chris t ian civiliza-t ion ," whose great indebtedness to the contributions ofJews has, incidentally, been so frequently acknowledgedby Christ ian scholars. This preachment comes largelyfrom some so-called fundamentalist Christ ians who issuet rac ts bearing such sensatiohal titles as "The JewishAssault on Chris t iani ty ," "Communism and the RooseveltBrain T r u s t , " "The Hidden H a n d : The Protocols of theComing Superman ," and "World Trends Toward Anti-Chr is t , " all of them being a t t emp t s to prove t ha t the Jewis a t the bo t tom of all present-day movements , supported


by quotations from the Bible! The same propaganda ispromoted also in the name of patriotism by groups whichseek to propagate the notion that the policies of the FederalAdministration are turning away from traditional Amer-icanism, and that the responsibility for this is traceable toso-called "alien" influences, which are said to be inspiredchiefly by Jews. These misguided patriots lean heavily onthe spurious Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

There is no doubt that the fact that there are Jews whoare communists is perhaps the most widely exploited anti-Jewish propaganda material. As a consequence, there aroseduring the past year in Jewish circles a demand for anexpression dissociating Jews from communism, and non-Jewish friends, such as ex-Ambassador James W. Gerard,felt impelled to urge Jewish leaders to "use their influenceto stay the flow of Communism." As a consequence, theJewish press and Jewish public speakers, as well as organiza-tions, were at pains, during the past year, to marshal factsand figures to disprove the allegation. Thus, the AmericanJewish Committee, in the report submitted at its annualmeeting on January 6, 1935, dwelt at length on the subject,pointing out that complete and unequivocal loyalty tothe country of one's citizenship has been a basic principleof Jewish life for the past 2,000 years, and that, while underthe American form of government "every individual hasthe right to join a legally existing political party, Jewishteaching condemns all doctrines violating the Talmudmaxim that the law of the land is the law of the Jews."The Committee's discussion ended as follows: "The vastmajority of Jewish citizens of the United States who adhereto their religious traditions continue, therefore, to upholdthe democratic American methods for achieving economic,social, and cultural progress."

An incident which was very probably an indication ofanti-Jewish antagonism resulting from generalizing theconnection of individual Jews with radical movementswas a small riot, in May 1935, on the campus of the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, when speakers representing the Leaguefor Industrial Democracy and several students, almostall of them Jews, were maltreated. Rabbi Max Kadushin,director of the Hillel Foundation at the University, expressed


the view that this incident was evidence of an undercurrentof anti-Jewish feeling. That it was similarly regarded byUniversity officials was made clear at a meeting at theinstitution, for the purpose of denouncing hooliganism, whenthe dean of the College said: "I understand that the uglyhead of race prejudice lifted itself on the campus. Theprinciple on which these riotous proceedings were basedwill wreck the University unless we wreck the people whosupport that principle."

It is a somewhat amusing paradox that, while Jews feltthemselves called upon to disavow communism because ofattacks from one quarter, they also heard voices chargingthem with being the arch-capitalists and largely responsiblefor the evils which are ascribed to the activities of so-calledinternational bankers. In an address, broadcast on a nation-wide radio hook-up, in March 1935, Father Charles E.Coughlin of Detroit, referred to the losses which had beensustained by investors in foreign loans floated by variousbanking houses. The fact that he referred by name to fivebanks with four of which Jews are known to be connected,aroused a great deal of discussion in Jewish circles, andthe opinion was expressed that this part of Father Coughlin'sspeech was designed to stimulate anti-Jewish antagonism.Articles appeared in the Jewish press proving statisticallythat so-called Jewish banking houses were responsible foronly a very small proportion of the total of foreign loansfloated during recent years. In a subsequent radio address,Father Coughlin denied the charge of Jew-baiting, but ina form which did not entirely satisfy the Jewish public.A great deal of interest was aroused, therefore, whenannouncement was made that one of the speakers at thefirst meeting of the American Union for Social Justice, theorganization of Father Coughlin's followers, to be held inDetroit on April 24, 1935, was to be Rabbi Ferdinand I.Isserman of St. Louis. This event, and statements madesubsequently by Rabbi Isserman, have allayed much ofthe fear among Jews that Father Coughlin may, if heregard it as expedient, use his vast influence to give impetusto the anti-Jewish movements existing in the country.

The wide prevalence of anti-Jewish propaganda evokedsuggestions from many quarters for the enactment of


legislation to prohibit the publication of matter which wascalculated to arouse racial intolerance or religious bigotry.Bills having such legislation in view were introduced in theLegislature of the State of New York, and such a bill wasadopted by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey.This bill, introduced by Assemblyman John J. Rafferty,provides jail sentence and a fine for the dissemination ofpropaganda tending to incite hatred toward members ofany race or creed. This legislation, however, was veryunpopular, and was protested against by the press of thestate.

Turning now to the perennial manifestations of anti-Jewish feeling, it is interesting to note that the questionof the limitation of the enrolment of Jews in medical schoolscame up for discussion again during the past year. Theoccasion was the dispatch of a letter, in November, 1934,by Dr. James L. McConaughy, President of WesleyanUniversity, Middletown, Connecticut, to the twelve Jewishstudents who were taking a pre-medical course in theuniversity. The letter, which was written by Dr. McConaughyand Dr. Edward Christian Schneider, Professor of Biology,declared that, because of the limited number of placesavailable in the freshman classes of medical schools, andbecause 17% of freshman students are Jews whereas Jewsconstitute 50% of the applicants for admission, "it isdifficult for Wesleyan to place her graduates of the Jewishrace in medical schools." The writers of the letter explainedthat they felt it their duty to inform the Jewish studentsof the circumstances, as they (the writers) had been dis-turbed by the difficulties that some of the students ofWesleyan had encountered in the matter of securingadmission to medical schools.

This occurrence revived the discussion of the subjectwhich was rife several years ago. (See Vol. 33, pp. 54-55.)At a public meeting which took place in New York Cityin December, Mr. Max D. Steuer of New York City, aprominent attorney, amazed many of his hearers by express-ing himself as being in favor of the introduction of a quotasystem on a nationality basis, not only in medical schools,but also in all other institutions of higher learning. At thesame meeting, Dr. Samuel J. Kopetzky favored the limita-


tion of the enrolment of Jews in medical schools on theground that the restriction of the number of Jewish physi-cians in the country is an economic necessity. In a seriesof articles published the same month, in the Jewish DailyBulletin, Dr. A. J. Rongy, while agreeing that a reductionin the number of Jewish physicians in the United Statesis an economic necessity, also advised against the acceptanceof a percentage norm for Jews in medical schools, pointingout at the same time that reductions in force result in aselection of a higher grade of Jewish students and that,while discrimination often works out in practice to the dis-advantage of Jews, it is not always motivated by anti-Jewishprejudice. Dr. Rongy advised a reduction in the numberof Jews taking up medicine by means of vocational guidance,and suggested the organization of a society of Jewishphysicians which would set up a standing committee toconfer with students desiring to study medicine, and todiscourage the unfit, and that existing Jewish organizationscompile and publish information on the subject, and onopportunities for Jewish physicians in the United States.

In this connection it is interesting to note that, in Decem-ber 1934, two men were found guilty of fraud in New YorkCity because they had taken a payment of $500 from aJewish parent on the promise of gaining admission to amedical school for his son.

Another perennial question, that of exclusion of Jewsfrom places of public resort, came to the fore when itbecame known that the Hotel New Chamberlain at OldPoint Comfort, Virginia, was denying accommodations to'Jews. The situation was the more flagrant because thehotel was built on land leased to the hotel by the UnitedStates Government. The matter aroused the interest ofmany prominent individuals, including Senator Harry F.Byrd. After several weeks of discussion, announcementwas made that the hotel authorities had agreed to discon-tinue the practice of denying accommodations to Jews.It is interesting to note that, in an effort to justify thisform of advertising, the manager of the hotel contendedthat the practice by Jewish hotels of advertising that theyobserve the Jewish dietary laws is tantamount to noticeof exclusion of non-Jews.


A great deal of astonishment was expressed in liberalcircles when, in April, The Nation, a weekly publication,printed an exchange of letters between Theodore Dreiserand Hutchins Hapgood, both authors, which had takenplace in 1933. In his letters, Dreiser revealed a profoundmisunderstanding of Jewish life and the acceptance ofmany of the prejudices against Jews which are foundamong persons of inferior cultural strata. He expressedthe view that Jews are materialistic and lacking in profes-sional integrity, and suggested either segregation or volun-tary "blending" as a solution of the problem of Jews andChristians living together. Dreiser was taken severely totask by the liberal and radical press. The New Masses, acommunist weekly, mournfully counted him as havingstrayed from the fold, and expressed the hope that hewould eventually see the light and return.

As has already been remarked, there is no way of cal-culating the effect of the anti-Jewish agitation during thepast two years, the first time in American history that ithas been carried on by so many agencies and on so widea scale. That the circulation of leaflets and booklets andeven periodicals containing scurrilous attacks against Jewsmust have had some effect, cannot, of course, be doubted.Moreover, the very existence of anti-Semitism as a publicpolicy in a country generally regarded as civilized, and thepublicity given to the reaction of Jews to that situation,have also brought latent anti-Jewish feeling to the surface,and that this feeling has undoubtedly found more or lessconcrete expression either in speech or in action has beennoted by such observers as Charles E. Silcox and GalenM. Fisher, authors of "Catholics, Jews and Protestants,"which deals in large part with recent anti-Jewish agitationsin the United States.

In what measure the newly-aroused anti-Jewish feelingmay have been more intense and widespread, had it notbeen for the effects of the movement for good will betweenJews and Christians since 1924 will also never be known;but that the seeds sown during all these years have bornesome fruit cannot be doubted, and it is also reasonable tobelieve that the continuing activities along this line areeffectively counteracting the pernicious labors of Jew-


baiters. Such events as the following must undoubtedlyhave had a beneficent influence on those who came withintheir radius.

In July 1934, at a mass-meeting of members of the Amer-ican Legion, at Baltimore, Father Robert F. White, nationalChaplain of the Legion, called upon the organization tofight religious and racial bigotry. In August, the BaptistWorld Alliance, at a convention in Berlin, Germany,adopted a report embodying a vigorous denunciation of"the long ill-usage of Jews on the part of supposedlyChristian nations," as "a violation of the spirit of Christ."In October, the Presbytery of New York adopted a six-point "Covenant of Reconstruction" against racial dis-crimination. It was decided that the more than 37,000communicants of the 60 churches belonging to the Presby-tery were to be asked to sign a pledge reading: "I will notknowingly be a party to any un-Christian racial discrimina-tion, and I will seek the friendship of persons of other races."In the same month, Advance, the national organ of theCongregational and Christian Churches of America, pub-lished in Boston, called upon the Christian church to"eradicate anti-Semitism forever." On October 23, inAtlantic City, the House of Bishops of the ProtestantEpiscopal Church in the United States unanimously approveda resolution adopted by the House of Deputies at theirgeneral convention expressing sympathy for persecutedJews. In November, the Long Island (N. Y.) BaptistAssociation adopted a resolution advocating closer under-standing between Baptists, and Jews, Catholics and Negrocitizens, and another resolution condemning "un-Christianand un-American tactics against a law-abiding and peacefulpeople," and deploring the activities of "Jew-baitingorganizations which, under the guise of Christian funda-mentalism, are peddling the notorious forgery known asthe Protocols of the Elders of Zion "

Beneficent as the effect of such steps undoubtedly are,it is unquestionable that cooperation between Jews andChristians is even more effective. We shall cite a few ofthe many examples of this, during the period under review.In September 1934, the fourth annual joint Rosh-Hashanahservice was held in Grace Church, New York City, under


the auspices of the World Fellowship of Faiths, and, inDecember, the same organization arranged a joint Yuleservice. In October, the Fellowship of Reconciliation issuedan appeal for Christian contributions to an Armistice DayFund for "those who suffer in Germany for their fidelityto religion, democracy, and peace." In Scranton, Pa., inthe same month, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy-men organized a Good Will Committee to "preserve andmaintain industrial peace, keep people at work, increasethe number of workers, and help to provide adequatewages." In May 1935, rabbis and Christian clergymenjoined in New York City in a service of consecration topeace and of renunciation of war. The Tablets of the Law,the Star of David, and the Cross were carried into thechurch at the opening, and led the recessional at the closeof the service.

Cooperation between the faiths was particularly closeand active, during the review period, in connection with acountry-wide drive for cleaner motion pictures. Thiscooperation was achieved through the National Conferenceof Jews and Christians and a militant Interfaith Com-mittee. A number of Jewish organizations vigorouslyendorsed this campaign, including the Union of OrthodoxJewish Rabbis, the National Council of Jewish Women,and the Synagogue Council of America with which areaffiliated the three national synagogue unions and the threenational rabbinical associations.

Through the National Conference of Jews and Christians,the three faiths cooperated also in protesting against thepersecution of religion in Mexico. In November 1934, theConference made public a protest bearing the signaturesof 1800 Christian clergymen, and rabbis. In December,an interdenominational mass-meeting, held in New YorkCity, attended by 1800 persons, also adopted resolutionsof protest. Condemnation of religious persecution was alsovoiced by the American Jewish Committee at its annualmeeting on January 6, 1935. "We note with dismay,"declared the Executive Committee, in its report, "thespread of anti-religious movements in both the Old andNew World. Along with our Catholic and Protestant fellow-citizens, we voice our protest against the suppression' of


religious liberty and freedom of conscience, wherever andwhenever such suppression is attempted."

The organized good will movement, embodied in theNational Conference of Jews and Christians, made greatstrides during the review period. Several new local unitsof the Conference were organized. A five-session seminaron group relations was held at Colby College, Waterville,Md. From January 27 to February 15, a good will pil-grimage was undertaken by a Catholic priest, a Protestantminister, and a rabbi, similar to the one which was sosuccessful in the fall and winter of 1933. On February 8,the "pilgrims" were invited, by a joint resolution passedunanimously, to address a joint session of the Senate andthe House, of the State Legislature of Alabama. Perhapsthe most notable project undertaken by the National Con-ference during the period was the second annual celebrationof Brotherhood Day, on February 24, 1935, which was muchmore generally observed than the initial one in 1934.

An incident, no doubt one of many, of an individualaction which makes for good-will was the submission byJoe Simon, a Jewish merchant and a Commissioner ofCorpus Christi, Tex., of a suggestion to the Mayor of theCity to order the closing of all business establishments onGood Friday, April 20, 1935, in order to afford the Christianpeople of the city a period of pious meditation in "memoryof the sacred atonement." The suggestion was adoptedby the Mayor with the approval of the Commissioners.

We turn now from reporting Jewish cooperation withChristians in various directions, to give a brief outline ofimportant religious developments within the Jewish com-munity itself. We begin by making note of a new coopera-tive move among the three wings of the synagogue. InApril 1935, a meeting was held of representatives of Ortho-dox, Conservative, and Reform congregations in New YorkCity, to map out a joint campaign for the purpose of increas-ing synagogue membership. In the following month, theUnion of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, ata regional convention in Washington, D. C, established aSoutheastern Unit for the purpose of intensifying religiousactivity in the southeastern section of the United States,especially among the youth.


Several steps were taken during the year in the directionof securing greater decorum in Jewish life. In the fall (1934),the Jewish Education Association of New York City issuedan appeal to Jewish organizations, urging them to banundignified forms of entertainment at their meetings andsocial functions; and the New York Board of JewishMinisters issued a statement condemning funerals on theSabbath and on holy days. In May 1935, the RabbinicalAssembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,at a convention, condemned public desecration of theSabbath in the shape of meetings, luncheons, open offices,and the like, on the part of all groups of Jewish constituencyor interest.

In this connection, an event, which occurred before theperiod being reviewed, should be recalled, namely, thepassage by the Legislature of the State of New York, inJune 1934, of an amendment to the Penal Law which madeit a misdemeanor for any person, other than the agentof a religious association or corporation, to sell or offer forsale, tickets for admission to religious services. This wasthe first positive step taken to eliminate the oft-condemnedmushroom synagogue evil. Jewish organizations in NewYork were active, in advance of the 1934 fall holy days,in cooperating with the civil authorities in the enforcementof this law. In Philadelphia and in Chicago, Jewish organ-izations appealed to the public against encouraging theestablishment of these temporary synagogues, for whichthere is no need as there are adequate accommodations inthe permanent synagogues.

In the field of Jewish law, a noteworthy event was theapproval by the convention of the Rabbinical Assemblyof the Jewish Theological Seminary of America of reformsproposed by Rabbi Louis Epstein of Brookline, Mass.,which are aimed at the elimination of perpetual widowhoodfor women whose husbands desert them, and who cannotremarry without securing a divorce from these husbandswho, in many cases, disappear from view and cannot befound. Rabbi Epstein, who had studied this problem formany years, proposed that, hereafter in connection withthe solemnization of marriages, the groom be requestedto designate in writing a proxy to write a divorce for the


wife, in the presence of the court of the Rabbinical Assembly,"if at any time I [the husband] disappear, or leave my wife,or fail to support her, or to fulfill my conjugal duty for aperiod of three years, or if we are divorced by the actionof a civil court." This modification of procedure wasdeclared illegal by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of theUnited States and Canada, whose convention followed thatof the Rabbinical Assembly.

In connection with this question, a case in point cameup in January 1935, in a Baltimore court. A woman, whohad been civilly divorced from her husband, petitionedthe court to require her former husband to give her a rab-binical divorce in pursuance of a contract they had mutuallyagreed upon. The judge (a non-Jew) denied her petition,holding that the contract was not binding because, accord-ing to Jewish law, a "ghet" is within the voluntary giftof the husband who cannot be compelled to give it. Jewishexperts, however, differed with the court's decision. In anarticle in the Baltimore Daily Record, a law periodical, aJewish attorney pointed out that no legal obstacle existsunder Jewish law, and that, besides, in this case where thecouple are divorced according to civil law, the court hasboth the power and the right to give relief to the widow.The case was scheduled for appeal, when this review wasbeing written.

Other court cases of Jewish interest during the yearinvolved so-called "charity rackets," the charge of slaughter-ing without a permit, the violation of Kashruth laws, thecharge of defrauding Jewish parents by falsely promisingto secure admission into a medical school for a son (alreadyreferred to), and the suit of a rabbi who had unsuccessfullyapplied for a pulpit, against an individual who is alleged tohave stated that the rabbi lacked the requisite education.Another interesting legal item was the exclusion of Jewsfrom a jury, in Boston, by mutual consent of attorneys onboth sides. The defendant in a civil libel suit was EdwardH. Hunter, the executive secretary of the Industrial DefenseAssociation, an anti-Jewish propaganda body. In orderthat there should not be the slightest suspicion of prejudice,Reuben Lurie, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Artkino


Guild, Inc., offered to exclude Jews from the jury. Inci-dentally, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs.

In the field of Jewish education, an especially noteworthyevent was the conferring, by the Legislature of the Stateof New York, of the status of a college upon the JewishTeachers Seminary. The sharp decline in Jewish immigra-tion and the availability for trade education elsewhereaccount for the turning over to the Board of Educationof the Baron de Hirsch Trade School for Boys of New YorkCity, after an independent existence of over forty years.

Several educational institutions continued to havefinancial difficulties during the past year. In August 1934,the two orthodox rabbinical associations and the Alumniof the Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan jointly issued a callfor the support of that institution, suggesting that allcongregations devote one day during the fall holy daysfor public appeals for contributions. In February 1935, theteachers of a yeshivah in Brooklyn, accommodating 500students, went on strike to bring to public notice the factthat their salaries were in arrears for six weeks. In April,teachers in some Jewish schools in New York City wenton a one-day strike in protest against the conditions underwhich they worked, especially their low and irregularsalaries. There were also strikes of employees of severalJewish hospitals in New York City, the strikers allegingintolerable working conditions and low wages.

Several items regarding efforts to extend Jewish influencesto Jewish students at American colleges deserve recording.During the year, the B'nai B'rith announced the establish-ment of Hillel Foundations at the University of Alabamaand at Pennsylvania State College. In October 1934, theChancellor of the University of Buffalo announced thereceipt of a fund to maintain a lectureship in Semiticlanguages and literature at the College of Arts and Sciences.Later, it was announced that Dr. Israel Efros of Baltimorehad been appointed to the lectureship.

In December, there took place in Philadelphia a dinner,at which Dr. Thomas S. Gates, President, and the Rev.W. Brooks Staber, chaplain, of the University of Penn-sylvania, stressed the importance of religious guidance for


the 4,000 Jewish s tudents in the colleges of the S ta te , andfunds were raised for financing religious act ivi ty.

In the field of Jewish culture, the most impor tan t eventwas the nation-wide celebration, in the spring of 1935, ofthe eight hundred th anniversary of the bi r th of MosesMaimonides. This celebration was fostered by a nationalcommit tee representing a large number of educational andreligious Jewish organizations. In m a n y cities, meetingswere held where appropr ia te addresses were delivered byJewish and also non-Jewish scholars, in recognition of theinfluence of Maimonides on the medieval scholastic move-ment . Special exhibits of Maimonides books and man-uscripts were held by the New York Public Library, theLibrary of Congress, H a r v a r d University, the DropsieCollege, and the Jewish Theological Seminary. T h e anniver-sary was also celebrated a t the Spanish House of ColumbiaUniversi ty. T h e anniversary was also signalized by thepublication of special articles in the Jewish press, and bythe appearance of several books on the life of the Jewishsage who is affectionately known to millions of Jews, theworld over, as R a m b a m . The event was also widely noticedby the general press, m a n y newspapers publishing featurearticles and editorials.

Other events of cultural significance were the announce-m e n t by the Jewish Publication Society of America of aprize of $2500 for the best novel of Jewish interest sub-mi t ted before April 15, 1936; the celebration of its twentiethanniversary by the New York Yiddish newspaper, TheDay, and of its t en th anniversary by the Jewish DailyBulletin; the announcement , in February 1935, of theestabl ishment of the St. Charles Society, to foster researchinto American Jewish biography and genealogy; and theappearance of a number of new Jewish periodicals. Theseincluded The Jewish Frontier, a monthly , published by theLeague for Labor Palest ine; the American Jewish Outlook,a weekly, published in P i t t sburgh; the Reconstructionist, amonthly , issued by the New York Society for the Advance-men t of Juda i sm; and the Youngstown Jewish Times, amonth ly issued in Youngstown, O. All of these appear inthe English language. In April, the publication of Theatreand Radio World, a new Yiddish monthly, was announced.


In May, following a conference of workers in the field ofYiddish culture from New York, Boston, Chicago, andPhiladelphia, held in the last, a Yiddish publishing enter-prise, called "Auflebung" (Revival), was established, forthe systematic publications of Yiddish belles lettres.

With the noteworthy exception of the productions of acompany called "Artef" (Arbeiter Theater Verband), inNew York City, which evoked the admiration of critics,the Yiddish theatre seasons, during the period under review,were not artistically significant.

In the field of philanthropy, besides the events alreadynoted in other places in this review, the most noteworthyevent was the four-day conference on problems of socialwork, held in New York City in January 1935, under theauspices of the National Council of Jewish Federations andWelfare Funds. Sessions of the conference heard reportsfrom Dr. Bernhard Kahn, European director of the JointDistribution Committee; Dr. Joseph Rosen, director of theagricultural work being carried on in Russia, under Amer-ican Jewish auspices; and by Mr. Neville Laski, presidentof the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In cooperationwith The American Hebrew, the Council devoted one of itssessions to a dinner in honor of James G. McDonald, HighCommissioner for Refugees from Germany, of the Leagueof Nations. Another interesting conference was that heldin April 1935* under the auspices of the Conference onJewish Relations, at which the question of the economicdistribution of Jews was discussed by Prof. Salo Baron ofColumbia University, Prof. Morris R. Cohen, of the Collegeof the City of New York, Prof. Jerome Michael of ColumbiaUniversity Law School, and Prof. Edward Sapir of YaleUniversity.

An unusually large number of prominent Jewish leadersfrom overseas visited the American community during thepast year. Besides Messrs. Kahn and Laski, mentionedelsewhere, there were Sholom Asch, the well-known author;Dr. Norman Bentwich, Counsellor to the High Commissionfor Refugees from Germany; Vladimir Jabotinsky, theleader of the World Organization of Zionist Revisionists;


Berl Locker, a member of the World Zionist Executive;David Ben Gurion, Chairman of the executive committeeof Histadruth Haovdim (the Palestine Labor Federation);Dr. Louis Oungre, the executive director of the ICA (JewishColonization Association); Dr. Mordecai Nurok, chiefrabbi of Latvia, and Stefan Zweig, the eminent author.

II OTHER COUNTRIES

CANADA

The outstanding event of the year for Canadian Jewrywas the Manitoba trial based upon a libel statute recentlypassed which makes "the publication of a libel against arace or creed . . . tending to raise unrest or disorder amongthe people" actionable by a suit for an injunction anddamages. An anti-Jewish newspaper, The CanadianNationalist, in its sixth number circulated among its readersin the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba a storyattributing ritual murder to the Jewish people. A tem-porary injunction was granted on October 13, 1934, andhearings were set for the permanent injunction on Novem-ber 7. Captain William Tobias of Winnepeg was the plaintiffand William Whittaker, the publisher of the newspaper, wasmade defendant. On November 7, the injunction wasextended. Whittaker appeared, dressed in the regulationbrown Nazi uniform. Chief Justice MacDonald who heardthe pleadings expressed surprise that the defendant's lawyereven dared to come into court "to justify such an accusa-tion." On February 13, 1935, the case came before Mr.Justice Montague who granted a permanent injunctionafter the defendant had refused to continue the trial.

The province of Quebec was the principal scene of anti-Jewish propaganda. The campaign culminated on May 16with the introduction of a bill in the Quebec Legislature toforce Jews to keep their stores closed on Sunday. Surprisinglyenough, this bill was supported by Premier Taschereauwho, although, twenty-five years ago, he had voted for abill granting full rights to Jews, now declared that if theLegislature could constitutionally repeal the section of thelaw affecting Jews he would vote for it.


In an effort to stop the circulation of anti-Semitic pro-paganda in Ottawa, charges of libel were brought by A. J.Freiman, president of the Zionist Federation of Canada,against Detective Jean Tissot of the Ottawa Police Depart-ment. Tissot was suspended by the chief of police forcirculating an article and a cartoon published originally inLe Patriote, a French-language newspaper of Montreal,which was libelous of Mr. Freiman as a Jewish leader. Thedefendant was also engaged in a conspiracy to set up aLeague of Christian Merchants aimed against Jewishbusinessmen.

But such manifestations of chauvinism have appearedeven in higher quarters. Minister of Labor Arcand ofQuebec, a member of the Taschereau cabinet, has urgedfascist groups to adopt the slogan "make your purchasesfrom our people only." He attacked the "disloyal elementwith whom they have to compete" and the "business con-trol which rests in the hands of those who are not of us."Even La Semaine Religieuse, leading Catholic weekly ofQuebec, has spread the accusation that Jews are an immoralpeople and thereby their persecution, as in Germany, isjustified, though, the paper warned, the methods desirablein Canada would not be so "Teutonic."

The Canadian Jewish Congress has taken an active partin combating propaganda against the Jewish people. Itreported early in June, 1935, that 64 committees had beenorganized to combat defamation, and that during the yeara total of 268 defamation cases had been handled.

GREAT BRITAIN

Pursuing her traditional policy of refusal to accept anycommitments which would disturb the balance of power onthe continent, Great Britain has found herself, in foreignpolicy at least, veering toward a sympathy for Nazi Ger-many. Inevitably, this appreciation of the Third Reichhas caused a turn away from the widespread antipathy withwhich the practices of Hitlerism were first greeted inEngland. Following Chancellor Hitler's speech to thepuppet Reichstag in May, 1935, British political leaderswere willing to let bygones be bygones and take the


Nazis at their word. Then came the Anglo-German navalagreement which, following soon after the announcementof submarine building on a large scale by Germany, andBritish pronouncements at Geneva against violations ofmulti-lateral treaties, sounded a false and disturbing note.Furthermore, in a speech in June 1935, the Prince of Walesproposed with almost unusual warmth that the hand offriendship should be proffered to German war veterans.In an article in the Daily Express George Malcolm Thomp-son, said that Hitler's biggest victory in England has beenthe conversion of the London Times. He was forced toreport, after analyzing the attitude of the press and thestate of liberal sentiment in England, that there was "alarge body of opinion favorable to the German point ofview, willing to make terms with Germany, offering con-cessions to the ambitions of Hitler." This new evolutionin British opinion was well illustrated after the visit ofLord Lothian to Germany and his interview with Hitler.He explained that the pathological forms which Nazismhad taken were due simply to the suppressed desire forequality of rights and fair treatment.

On the domestic scene, Sir Oswald Mosley continued toexpound his fascist program, becoming more anti-Jewishas his other policies are seen to be less attractive to theEnglish mentality. On December 17, 1934, Mosley andthree of his henchmen were tried at Lewes on a charge of"riotous assembly." Challenged to debate by the Anglo-Palestine Club, he refused to engage in any such encounterunless the Jewish question would occupy a time propor-tionate to the number of Jews in the general population,and Sir Herbert Samuel, leader of the Liberal Partyand first High Commissioner in Palestine, would be hisopponent.

In the field of philanthropy, one of the most importantdecisions made by the British Jewish community was toorganize a separate appeal for Polish Jewry, which waslaunched on March 29. The appeal was issued jointly bythe Federation of Jewish Relief Organizations, the Federa-tion of Polish Jews, the Ort, the Oze and the Association ofRabbis. It was endorsed by the Board of Jewish Deputies.

Perhaps the event of the year for all England was the


Silver Jubilee Celebration for the King. An address onbehalf of the Jewish community signed by Neville Laski,president of the Board of Deputies, and Leonard Montefiore,president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, was deliveredto His Majesty on May 12. The address ran:

"We desire to assure Your Majesty that in the expres-sions of loyal affection which the auspicious event isevoking from the millions of your loyal subjects of everycreed and race in all parts of the world, Your Majesty'ssubjects of the Jewish faith yield to none in the depthof their loyalty or the sincerity of their feelings. DuringYour Majesty's long and arduous reign, your Jewishsubjects have shared in the efforts, the endurance andthe triumphs of their fellow-countrymen with a deepsense of devotion to the Throne under the British com-monwealth of nations.'

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

The government of South Africa has, during the pastyear, with exemplary dispatch taken positive steps to stampout propaganda and agitation aiming to stimulate anti-Jewish sentiment. On October 29, 1934, the governmentoutspokenly outlawed the Nazi Party in southwest Africa,the mandated territory, membership in which was madegrounds for criminal action. As the basis for this decision,the government pointed to the connection between theGrey Shirt organization in Southwest Africa and the GermanNational Socialist Party. It cited the fact that the local"Fuehrer" of the Nazi party in Southwest Africa wasappointed by the party leaders in Germany, and wasresponsible to Hitler himself. This organization, therefore,established a dual allegiance which was incompatible withthe sovereignty of the mandatory power.

A most important exposure which effectively discreditedanti-Jewish propaganda in South Africa was the decisionon August 21 by the Supreme Court awarding RabbiAbraham Levy a $9,000 judgment in a defamation suitagainst three outstanding anti-Jewish propagandists: HarryV. Inch, Johannes Von Moltke, and David Olivier. Thesedefendants had circulated a document which, they claimed,


was taken from the Port Elizabeth Hebrew Congregationwhere the plaintiff, Rabbi Levy, was spiritual leader. Atthe top of the document were Hebrew characters in redink signifying "Kosher for Passover," and "The Book ofChronicles." The documents purported to have beenwritten by a Jew and displayed a blasphemous attitudetoward the Church, a plan of Jewish imperialism andsocialism, and a proposed attack on the Grey Shirts, thelocal Nazi group. The court did not delay in pointing outthat the document was either the creation of Inch himselfor prepared with his connivance. The story was found tobe completely false; and as to the charge that Jews wereconnected with a plot to control the world, Dr. NahumSokolow testified regarding the malicious falsity of this libel.The court finally decided that "the document was thework of an ignorant forger," and that Inch had participatedin its distribution. On February 3, after a supplementarycriminal trial for distributing a forged document, perjury,and theft, Inch was sentenced to six years and three monthsimprisonment. A third trial lasting from February 5 to 9,1935, resulted in the acquittal of Inch on a charge of forgingthe document himself; the court having failed to find con-clusive evidence that the accused had personally concoctedthe document.

An important statement regarding the boycott of Germangoods was made by the South African Minister of theInterior, Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, speaking at Cape TownUniversity. Prefacing his remarks with a hearty endorse-ment of General Smuts's views on "toleration as the verycornerstone of liberty," Hofmeyr said that although indi-viduals may properly boycott freely, "no government canview an organized boycott without concern."

FRANCE

Despite the growing Fascist movement in France, thegreat preoccupation of the Jewish community has beenthe status and condition of the German refugees. No defini-tive solution of their problem was reached; and, withoutmeans of livelihood or personal security, their situationmay, the French Jews believe, cause serious repercussions.


A new spirit of hostility toward the alien seems to havebroken out, as evidenced by the twenty-four hour strikeon January 31, 1935, which began in the technical schoolsof Paris and spread to the medical faculty of the university.According to official statements, however, the demonstra-tion was directed not against foreigners in general butagainst the number of foreigners who hope to make theirliving in France after they have finished their studies. Itis not denied that in some cases the propaganda againstaliens has also been directed against Jews. Many of the

• foreign students in the French faculties come from EastEuropean countries where, as Jews, they are faced withthe numerus clausus.

Most precarious has been the situation of the Jewishrefugees from Germany and those who fled from the Saarregion, following the plebiscite on January 15. An anti-foreign drive of great magnitude has begun, as economicconditions become worse and as events like the assassina-tion of King Alexander at Marseilles influence publicopinion. On December 11, 1934, the French government,however, announced that reports as to contemplated legisla-tive and administrative measures directed against Jewishimmigrants were false. Yet, the problem of finding workfor the refugees still remains. Herr Ernst Toller, the Ger-man refugee playwright, has proposed that firms set upwholly or in part by German refugee capital be authorizedto employ German refugee labor up to thirty-three per centof their personnel. On December 27, the French ForeignOffice refused to extend transit visas held by thousands ofJewish refugees from Germany. The condition of therefugees is, of course, unspeakably bad. Impoverishmentincreases daily; mental maladjustments are sharpened andassume almost pathological forms; the future is completelydark. For some, vocational retraining has been possible.More than 130 German refugee students began work onJune 30, 1935, in the workshops opened by the Ort in Paris.

A new plan for settlement of Jews in the French mandatedterritory of Syria was announced toward the close of 1934by the French government. It is hoped that as many as10,000 Jews will be permitted to settle in this Near Easternterritory. Negotiations were conducted with the French

174 AMERCAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK

government by the Committee for the Defense of JewishRights in Central and Eastern Europe. The plan willnecessitate the drainage of the valley of Amouk and thelake of Antioch. Small model self-supporting farms forsettlers are envisaged. Industrialists, engineers, and artisans,besides agriculturists, are to be permitted to settle.

This new colony, however, will have to face the facttha t Arab hostility has been stimulated throughout theMediterranean region. The latent danger was tragicallyillustrated early in February 1935, when for the secondtime in six months rioting against the Jews of Algeriaoccurred. In August 1934, a savage at tack led by a nativeMoslem nationalist resulted in 40 deaths, pillaging, and ageneral terror in Constantine. The February outbreaktook place in Setif, Algeria. The French Minister of Interiorannounced tha t he would visit the scene of the riots. OnApril 5 the French government warned tha t to preventdisturbances, a punishment of two years' imprisonmentwould be imposed upon any person who was convicted ofspreading subversive, particularly Nazi, propaganda amongthe Arabs. The view has been expressed tha t the attacksupon the Jews are disguised methods of protesting grievancesactually directed against the French administration.Undoubtedly, also, there has been a good deal of Nazipropaganda spread deliberately in the French colonies.

SWITZERLAND

Despite the Germanic origin of a large section of the Swisspopulation, the most vigorous steps have been taken bythe government and the local cantons to suppress thevandalism and defamation which Nazi propaganda havesought to stimulate. The Zurich City Council requestedthe government of the cantons on January 2, 1935, to forbidanti-Jewish demonstrations and ban anti-Semitic publica-tions. The government met this appeal by prohibitingthe formation of Nazi Storm Troops, and this prohibitionwas sustained by the Supreme Court in a decision onFebruary 28. On June 30, the police of Zurich refused toallow Streicher's anti-Jewish Der Stuermer to be sold onthe streets of the cantons. On April 3, the government of


the Geneva canton issued an order prohibiting libels on theJewish race or religion. In all parts of Switzerland, Nazivandals who had thrown bombs into synagogues or attackedJews were promptly sentenced. Authorities of the cantonof Solothurn prohibited the publication of the Volksbund,an anti-Jewish journal. And, on June 9, as a rebuff toNazi Germany, the Swiss- Federal Council voted down agrant of $12,000 for the Swiss teams to participate in theWorld Olympic Games in 1936 at Berlin. The Councildecided that participation was not desirable because ofthe Nazi spirit which will prevail in the games. The Catholicsjoined the Socialists in the 82 to 57 vote.

Undoubtedly, the positive hostility of the Swiss governingofficials to Nazi activity is due to the fact that the Germangovernment has in many instances violated what has cometo be regarded as the most sacred national possession—neutrality. The Jacob case was symptomatic of the Nazimethods and of the Swiss reaction to them. Dr. BertholdJacob, a German-Jewish journalist refugee, was enticedto Basle by Nazi agents and carried across the border intoNazi Germany where his life is worth little. On March 25,Swiss police authorities disclosed that a ring of Nazi pro-vocateurs was conducting activities among the German-Jewish refugees in the countries bordering Germany. OnMarch 31, the Swiss government sent a sharply wordedprotest to Berlin over this "grave violation of Swiss sov-ereignty." A week later, Foreign Minister Motta announcedthat the Swiss government would bring the Jacob casebefore the World Court if the prisoner were not releasedimmediately and returned to Swiss soil. Dr. Wesemann,the Nazi agent who had lured Jacob to Basle, admittedthat-he acted upon instructions from the Nazi Secret Policein Germany. The German government's reply on April14, was provokingly truculent, contending that Jacob hadcome into the hands of German "justice" without theintervention of German officials. It described the victimas a "traitor of the worst kind." The journalist, the govern-ment stated, would be tried on charges of treason forarticles which he published while abroad. On May 6, it wasannounced that the German government had agreed to


submit the case to the Hague Court of Arbitration undera German-Swiss agreement.

In order once more to demonstrate the malicious falsityof the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Dr. J.Dreyfus-Brodsky, president of the Swiss Federation ofJewish Communities, Dr. Marcus Cohen, president of theZionist Federation of Switzerland, and Dr. Marcus Ehren-preis of Stockholm, chief rabbi of Sweden, brought anaction, the trial of which began on October 29, 1934, inBerne. The defendants in the criminal libel suit were Dr.A. Zander, the editor a Swiss Nazi organ which had pub-lished articles affirming the truth of the "Protocols," andTheodor Fritsch, publisher of the "Protocols" in German.Since Fritsch had died before the inception of the suit,Zander was the sole defendant. In the course of the hear-ings, it was necessary to prove the falsity of the charges ofthe "Protocols." Dr. Chaim Weizmann, former presidentof the World Zionist Organization, took the stand on thefirst day of the trial to deny that the Zionist Congress atBasle in 1897 took any secret action, as the "Protocols"assert, to establish Jewish domination over the world.Others who testified as to the false nature of the "Protocols"were Count du Chayla, Sergius Swatikow, who was vice-governor of Petrograd during the Kerensky regime, PaulMiliukov, Minister of Foreign Affairs under Kerensky andnoted Russian historian, and Henry Sliosberg, RussianJewish community leader. On October 31, the presidingjudge postponed the trial in order to allow the defendantsto obtain the services of Colonel Ulrich Fleischauer ofErfurt, Germany, "expert on Jewish affairs." When hetestified on April 30, the Nazi "expert" told the Court that"all presidents of the United States and President Wilsonin particular were under Jewish influence." The KelloggPeace-Pact and the League of Nations he asserted were"Jewish creations." He attempted also to ascribe the"protocols" to the B'nai B'rith. In rebuttal Dr. C. A. Looslideclared that the "Protocols" were a shabby forgery andhad a tendency to incite the readers thereof to illegal action.

On May 14 the Court at Berne awarded the plaintiffscompensation totaling 650 Swiss francs (about $195.) and


explained this mild sentence because of a desire not tocreate martyrs. The judge fully accepted the testimonygiven by Dr. Loosli and Dr. Baumgartner, experts for theplaintiffs.

ITALY

In November 1934, the Italian League of Jewish Com-munities published the first report of its activities duringthe period beginning June 1933 and ending October 1934,describing its work in preserving the archives and librariesof old Jewish communities in small Italian towns. TheFlorence Rabbinical Seminary has been transferred toRome, and a number of German-Jewish scholars have beenadded to its faculty.

The sudden death of Dr. Angelo Sacerdoti, Chief Rabbiof Rome, brought about a crisis in the Italian Rabbinate.It is feared that the number of rabbis in even the largercities of Italy is insufficient to satisfy the spiritual needs ofthe population. Dr. David Prato was appointed rabbi tosucceed Dr. Sacerdoti.

GERMANY

During the past year, Nazi Germany has progressedrapidly toward its goal of becoming a military state. Therehas been an increasing control by the central Reich govern-ment over local affairs. The army has emerged as thedominant political force. The old Nazi cells, composedlargely of middle-class elements, have been disbanded. TheTreaty of Versailles has been renounced unilaterally inrespect of its military clauses, and rearmament is proceedingswiftly. Universal conscription has been decreed.

The Nazi campaign of slow extermination against theJews has not only remained unchanged; it has flowered andtaken new forms. By the summer of 1934, the gamut oflegislative persecution had almost been reached. The pastyear, however, embellished the Aryan decrees, extendedtheir scope, and intensified their rigor. On June 26, 1935"non-Aryans" were excluded from labor service, an obliga-tion incumbent upon all Germans under the conscriptiondecree. Minister of Education Rust, in an order of March


21, 1935, demanded that Jewish children should not befavored over "Aryans" in the schools. On April 24, thePresident of the Press Chamber of the Reich ruled thateditors and publishers of newspapers will have to provetheir "Aryan" descent as far back as 1800, in order to beable to retain their positions. The Minister of Interior,on April 30, decreed that Jews were forbidden to exhibitthe German flag. On April 17 the same official decided that"non-Aryans" and persons married to "non-Aryans" willnot in the future be granted licenses as druggists, eventhough they may have fought in the war. Also, in thefuture, "non-Aryan" students will not be admitted toexaminations in medicine and dentistry. Certain exceptionsmay be made at the discretion of the Minister of Interiorif the applicant has only one grandfather or grandmotherof Jewish blood and if his mental attitude and physicalappearance are unobjectionable. When the new conscrip-tion law was announced, it was declared that no Jewswould be admitted into the army, but that in certain casesthey may be drafted for menial duty behind the lines.

In all parts of Nazi Germany, the Aryan decrees werevigorously applied and extended by local authorities andthe courts. Non-Aryan salesmen were banned by the ReichAssociation of Retail Firms. All teaching positions wereclosed to Jews by an ordinance of the Minister of Educationon January 6. It was ordered that all doctors in Germanywould have to submit proof that their wives also were"Aryans." It was reported from Berlin on March 22 thatnot a single Jewish student had been admitted to Germanuniversities in the academic year 1933-34, according toofficial statistics of the Reich Minister of Education.

This is only a slight indication of the spirit which hasprevailed in Nazi Germany during the past year. Thereis a strong possibility, moreover, that a new Reich statutewill soon be enacted formally placing Jews and "non-Aryans" in a second-class legal status, withdrawing citizen-ship from them, and denying them the right to vote orexercise any political rights. There is even the danger thatthe Jews in Germany may be eliminated from all branchesof trade and commerce, as a result of the organization of aReich Chamber of Trade which will completely control


German economy. The fear prevails that the new Chamberwill pursue policies similar to those of the Chamber ofCulture which, under the direction of Minister Goebbels,has practically eliminated non-Aryans from Germancultural life. The tragic situation of the Jew in the profes-sions has never better been illustrated than by the officialstatistics showing that of the 13,163 law students registeredin Germany during 1934, only 46 were Jews—all of themcarry-overs from previous years.

The disenfranchisement of the German Jews has alreadybegun in anticipation of a formal law to this effect. A decreeof the Nazi Cabinet has ordered the revocation of thecitizenship of Jews naturalized since November, 1918.This will affect about 10,000 East-European Jews natural-ized in Prussia alone. Announcements are made almostdaily of hundreds of Jews whose citizenship has been with-drawn. Even German-born children of naturalized EuropeanJews are being included. The law is being freely applied,moreover, and it is reported that many Jews born inGermany are also being deprived of their citizenship rights.Jewish firms in Prussia were, the Prussian Supreme Courtheld on May 24, not to be permitted to use the word "Ger-man" in their advertising signs because it is "increasinglysynonymous with Aryan." The government of Franconia,in one decree on June 21, cancelled the citizenship of allJews in that province who were naturalized between 1922and 1929. All Jewish architects were forbidden to becomemembers of the Chamber of Fine Arts, thereby excludingthem from opportunity for a livelihood in the future.

An intimation of what may be expected was given onMay 1 by one of the highest officials in Dusseldorf whodeclared at a Nazi meeting ("Kameradschaftsabend"):

"The Jewish question will be settled now . . . forsome time to come you will be able to strike a Jew acrossthe face ('einen Juden in die Fresse schlagen'), and noone will punish you, for an action is about to begin'nowand will not come to an end."

It appears, moreover, that despite any desire on thepart of the economic leaders of the Reich, such as Dr.Hjalmar Schacht, to take less stringent measures against


the Jews, there is not even the slightest possibility that theNazi program will deviate from the course which it hasmarked out and which, from the viewpoint of its ownsecurity has been so successful. In fact, it would appearthat as the Nazi state is revealed to the German peopleincreasingly in its role of naked dictatorship in the interestof certain industrial cliques, oppression of the Jews willincrease accordingly in order to divert the attention of themiddle classes who form the backbone of the Hitler move-ment. Furthermore, as the Nazi economy becomes imperiledand subject to stress, the drive against the Jews seems tohave become intensified for the purpose of satisfying thepetty bourgeoisie that the government is protecting theirrights and furthering their interests. Despite the fact that,on March 6, Dr. Schacht termed the vigorous anti-Jewishdiscriminations a "blunder" which are an "unfortunate by-product" of the revolution, the speech of Chancellor Hitlerbefore the fourth Nazi Party Congress in September, 1934,wherein he termed the "chaos" from which he saved Ger-many the result of "Jewish intellectualism," remains theonly official government doctrine.

The death of Von Hindenburg on August 2, 1934,removed one of the last possible restraints. In thefarcical plebiscite that followed, ninety percent of theelectorate (according to official figures) voted in favorof the Hitler regime. Four million Germans dared tovote "no"—an increase of 100 percent since the previousreferendum of November, 1933. The "bloody week-end"of June 30 served as a warning to dissident elementsthat the Nazis will brook no interference or deviationfrom the party line. Local Nazi officials and storm-troopers have kept themselves busy by continuouslymolesting Jews throughout Germany. Attacks on Jewishstores have constantly taken place in Dusseldorf, Munich,Frankfurt and smaller centers. A number of munici-palities, particularly in Bavaria, have placed outsideof their town-limits signs announcing the exclusion ofJews. The most alarming development came on July 15,when, stimulated by the provocative Nazi propaganda anddirected by government officials, mobs of young Nazismarched through the Kurfurstendam in Berlin assaulting


every person whom they believed to be a Jew, wreckingstores, and shouting threats against "Jewish impudence."

One of the most typical acts of the Nazi government wasthe cancellation of memorial services in honor of ProfessorFritz Haber, famous Jewish inventor who died in exileas a refugee on February 1, 1934, at the age of 65. Hiscolleagues at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, however, refusedto heed the government's warning. Professor Max Planck,the noted physicist who succeeded Haber, said that he would"retain in the annals of science, and the history of theKaiser Wilhelm Institute, a place of honor." Haber waspraised as "a German scholar and a German soldier." Afew days before the meeting, Dr. Bernard Rust, NaziMinister of Education, circularized all German universitiesto the effect that the proposed memorial was "a challengeto the Hitler regime." All members of university facultieswere forbidden to attend the memorial, but more than 500crowded the meeting hall. The German press, of course,was forbidden to mention the incident.

These and similar manifestations do point to the growthof an opposition movement which, under the cover ofacademic respect and religious liberty, has shown someencouraging results. The Nazis have also met resistance intheir efforts to coordinate the church, especially throughthe determined opposition of Bishop Hans Meisser whoat one time was even imprisoned after thousands of hisparishioners openly defied the government.

Faced with the necessity of winning the Saar plebiscite,Chancellor Hitler ordered an armistice in the church warbefore the Christmas holiday. After the victory in theSaar, Reich Bishop Mueller, the Nazi religious head, renewedhis attempts to bring the churches under Nazi control.Four hundred Protestant Pastors were arrested in a spring"purge" of irreconcilables. Dr. Niemoller, the popularreligious leader, was among them. The clergy were officiallyforbidden in their sermons to refer to the Nazi "Aryan"decrees or to criticize the anti-Jewish program. Neverthe-less, the most outspoken denunciation of national socialism,since Hitler came to power, was delivered from Protestantpulpits throughout Germany by the reading of a pamphletissued by the Confessional Synod's Brotherhood Council.


The manifesto attacked the idolatry of the Nazi creed andthe trend toward paganism.

There is evidence, also, that unrest and opposition to theeconomic policies of the Hitler government are growing.Chancellor Hitler personally banned Der Reichswart, aweekly anti-Semitic publication issued by the leader of thepagan movement, Count Reventlow, because of an articleexpressing dissatisfaction with the economic policy of theNazi government and the failure to put big business inits place. Even more striking was the result of the electionsto the labor councils, the Nazi substitute for trade unions.Despite intimidation, the results were so unfavorable tothe Nazis that no official publication of them was made.Furthermore, after anti-Jewish riots had been stimulatedby storm-troopers in Munich on May 25, 1935, the BavarianMinister of the Interior, Wagner, was forced to promisethe prosecution of those involved in the riots, and blamedexpelled members of the Nazi party for the anti-Jewishterror which had been going on in Munich for the previoustwo weeks. Although Herr Wagner follows Streicher inhis program, it is believed that he was forced to this actionby the hostility of the Munich populace against such high-handed proceedings. It appears that non-Jewish firms inMunich had hired the rioters to attack shops of Jews inorder to end their competition. Even Julius Streicher cameout with a public condemnation of the excesses because,as he explained, his propaganda was intended to drive theJews out of Germany, and not to break windows and startprogroms. Yet, the propaganda which is the cause of theseoutbreaks continues unabated. Each new issue of DerStuermer brings forth some freshly conceived libel againstthe Jews. Streicher has even extended his seat of operationto other cities, particularly Frankfurt and Berlin, and itis to his influence that the anti-Jewish riots are ascribedwhich took place in Berlin in mid-July, 1935. On June24, 1935 more than ten thousand German children, membersof the Nazi Youth Organization, were forced to give theirformal oath eternally "to hate the Jews.' at the SummerFestival in Franconia. The pledge was given to HerrStreicher and General Goering.


The object of the Nazi policy seems to have been moreclearly defined during the past year. Any suggestion thatthe best procedure for Jews would be to remain in Germanywas vigorously condemned by the Nazi authorities. HeinrichStahl, president of the Berlin Jewish community, whoreturned from a visit to Palestine and delivered an addresswarning Jews not to emigrate except under certain condi-tions, was prohibited from making further talks. A meetingof the Central Union of German Citizens of Jewish Faithcalled for June 16, 1935, was prohibited, because its leaderswere of the opinion that the solution of the Jewish problemlies within Germany rather than in emigration. Probablyfor the same reason, the C. V. Zeitung, the newspaper ofthis Association, was suspended for three months. Ingeneral, the government has favored the creation of occupa-tional courses for potential Jewish emigrants as an effectivemeans of rendering the country free of Jews. But, onMarch 13, a circular issued by Dr. Schacht prohibitedJews from reorienting their lives as artisans with the intentto remain in Germany.

On April 23, Dr. Gross, chief of the Nazi Race Bureau,announced that the exclusion of Jewish children from thepublic schools of Germany will be the next step in theGovernment's program.

These official acts of discrimination hardly adequatelyreflect the bombardment of the German people by anti-Jewish propaganda in the daily Nazi press. The Stuermer'shas been, of course, the most consistent campaign; ifanything, during the past year, it has even exceeded itsrecord of obscenity and malice. But, other papers such asthe Voelkischer Beobachter, the Westdeutscher Beobachter,and the Frankischer Tageszeitung have been almost asactive. Yet, one of the most startling events of the yearwas a bold demand by the Frankfurter Zeitung, one of thefew quasi-independent newspapers left, that the Naziparty content itself with the anti-Jewish legislation alreadyenacted. It pointed out that the Jewish issue should bereconsidered because every German suffered directly as aresult of the world-wide boycott. Behind this brave appealappeared the hand of Dr. Schacht whose "commercialtolerance" this liberal paper now reflects. But, the bitter


a t t a c k of the Nazi press followed soon after with the charget h a t the Frankfurter Zeitung was "in sympa thy with world-Jewry . "

T h e result of this constant oppression, aggravated daily,is the ever more desperate refugee problem. I t was announcedon M a y 9 by the Voelkischer Beobachter t h a t 90,000 Jewshad left Germany since Hitler came into power, t h a t thegovernment had collected 25 million dollars in emigrationtaxes from refugees, of whom about 10,000 have subse-quent ly re turned to Germany. In the spring of 1935, thesewere placed in special refugee concentration camps or, asthe Voelkischer Beobachter pu t it, "education camps . " Thiswas confirmed b y an announcement of the German Con-sulate in Palestine on June 19 advising refugees not tore turn to Germany "even for a short v is i t" as they wouldbe placed in such camps. A plan has been introduced byMr . George Kareski , leader of the Berlin Jewish communi ty ,for an emigration of Jews from Germany lasting over 25years. I t is hoped t h a t the government will lend its assistance.

B u t German Jewry itself has undergone an evolutionwhich severely contrasts with the un i ty which i t hadachieved in the earlier days of the Hit ler regime. Until1934 the Nazi regime was recognized by the German Jewsas a common menace which required a t all costs the solidarityof i ts vict ims. Now, a cleavage has appeared becauseGerman Jewry has reached the point where it mus t decidewhether i ts future lies still in Germany or whether Palestineshould be acknowledged as a1 final dest ination. The govern-ment , as we have seen above, favors the Zionist program,al though the major i ty of German Jewish leaders are notwith them. T o add to the confusion, the Zionists havedemanded t h a t the control of the Berlin Jewish communi tybe given to them. Symptomat ic of the growing sympathybetween the German Zionist Federat ion and the Hitlerprogram for expelling the Jews was the fact t h a t the Naziauthori t ies apparent ly placed no objection to participationb y the German Zionists in the World Zionist Congress,to be held a t Lucerne on August 27, 1935.

A p a r t from these differences of philosophy and ult imategoal, one of the most gratifying events of the year was theincorporation in February of 1935, within the Reichsver-


tretung der deutschen Juden, of the activities of the CentralCommittee for Relief and Reconstruction. This amalgama-tion of effort places all relief, reconstruction, and rehabilita-tion projects of German Jewry under a single agency. Thisorganization is expected to pay greatest attention to theproblem of Jewish youth. A Jewish school system hasbeen set up and, it was reported on November 20, 1934,that 4,000 children were attending such schools in Berlinalone. A Federation of German Jewish Youth Organiza-tions has been established; and a Youth Day was proclaimedfor March 10, 1934. In other respects, too, communalactivity of a sort has flourished. Jewish theatres havesprung up; a total of 18,500 copies of the new edition ofthe Philo Lexicon of Jewish Knowledge were sold in thecourse of 180 days; a new Jewish theatre and Jewishcultural activities have been developed; and, most sig-nificant of all for the People of the Book, the first volumeof a new German translation of the Bible, undertaken byProfessor Harry Torczyner of the Hebrew University atthe request of the Berlin Jewish community, appeared onFebruary 5, 1935.

At the beginning of 1935, there were approximately475,000 Jews in Germany; and about 300,000 "non-Jewishnon-Aryans." To these thousands whose future mustperforce be molded by the disaster which has afflicted theirFatherland, Dr. Julius Brodnitz, president of the CentralUnion of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, in a spiritedaddress before a Koenigsberg audience in the last days ofDecember of 1934, declared

"We remind both old and young that it takes just asmuch heroism as those have displayed who with genuineconviction go out to the Holy Land, to remain here,conscious of our duty, and wait at our posts."

* # *The report of Mr. James G. MacDonald, League of

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany,submitted to the Governing Body of the High Commissionon July 17, was a full description of the problems raisedby the flight of over 80,000 refugees from Germany. Heurged that, in order to meet their elementary needs, it


would be necessary to have the High Commission supplantedby "an organization created by the League of Nations asan integral part of the League system."

The largest number of refugees, 27,000, has been settledin Palestine; 6,000 more have found refuge in the UnitedStates; 3,000, in South American countries; and 800, inother overseas countries; 18,000 have been repatriated tocountries of Central and Eastern Europe; while 27,500 stillremain without any political security in Europe. Mr.MacDonald estimated that approximately $10,000,000 hasbeen raised during the past two years for the relief andrehabilitation of refugees. Of this sum, the Jews of theUnited States contributed $3,000,000, and the Jews ofGreat Britain $2,500,000. The organizations for the assis-tance of academic and intellectual refugees, with the aidof the Rockfeller Foundation, raised approximately $1,500,-000. The rest was raised by Jewish and non-Jewish jorgan-izations in other countries.

Strenuous efforts have been made by the High Com-missioner and his associates to find permanent havens ofrefuge for those who have been forced to leave Germany.In the Spring of 1935, Mr. MacDonald visited the countriesof Central and South America in order to study economicopportunities and immigration possibilities there. Dr.Samuel Guy Inman, an expert on Latin American affairs,also travelled throughout South America for this purpose.They found prospects in Argentine and Brazil most favor-able because in these countries, plans are being pushed bythe governments for the diversification of agriculture.The governments of these countries, however, appearedto be least inclined to favor immigration for fear of a growingnative anti-Semitism and because of a renewed nationalism.

On July 18, 1935, it was reported that the governmentof Ecuador had officially agreed to place 1,250,000 acresof land at the disposal of Jewish colonization agencies.The agreement was signed between Dr. Brutzkus, head ofthe Emcol (Jewish Emigration and Colonization Association)and President Don Jose Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador. Theland set aside for colonization is capable of maintaining50,000 families. It is stipulated that the colonies must bebuilt along cooperative lines and must keep an "open door"

REVIEW OF THE YEAR S695 187

for non-Jewish refugees. The agreement also states thatthe colony shall not be autonomous in language, but thatSpanish must be the official tongue.

Commenting on a report that it would encourage thesettlement of Jews, the Albanian government made itclear on June 10, 1935, that only Jews with capital toinvest would be welcome in that country.

In order to meet the demands of governments for aquid pro quo in the settlement of refugees, Mr. MacDonaldannounced in his Report of July 17 that a Refugee EconomicCorporation had been formed in the United States with acapitalization of ten million dollars, of which $1,250,000has already been subscribed.

AUSTRIA

Since the assassination of Chancellor Dollfuss on July25, 1934, Austria has been ruled by a Fascist dictatorshipin opposition both to the National Socialists and to theradical parties. But the government has, during the pastyear, been sitting on a political volcano: on the one hand,it owes allegiance to Mussolini, for it was largely throughhis assistance that Austria has retained her independence;and, on the other, Nazi influence has been gaining groundamong the army and the middle class. Similarly, and as aresult of this political uncertainty, the policy of the Schusch-nigg government toward the Jews has been a wavering one.On February 7, 1935, Eduard Ludwig, chief of the govern-ment press service announced that "the Austrian govern-ment will never permit anti-Semitic winds blowing fromanother state to be successful here." He promised that theMinister of Interior would "rectify all errors" in the dis-missal of Jewish physicians, an investigation of which wasthen pending. Yet, the Jews reminded themselves thatthis statement was probably inspired by the attempt toobtain a loan for Austria in London, which ended in failureand a blunt rebuke from Herr Otto Niemeyer, Anglo-Jewish banker, who accused the Austrians of violating theTreaty of Saint Germain by their discriminations.

For, only a week earlier, Prince Ernst von Starhemberg,vice-Chancellor, had intimated that the new Austria, in


which he possesses such great political power, would takea firm s tand on the Jewish question. I t is impossible todeny tha t , during the pas t year, the difficulties facingJewish youth in the ar t s and professions have appearedalmost insurmountable . Since February 1934, no Jewshave been appointed or promoted in the hospital or welfareinst i tut ions of Vienna. Especially those Jews who obtainedtheir citizenship after 1919 are facing growing discrimina-tions. Dr . Jacob Ehrlich, one of the Jewish members ofthe Vienna Ci ty Council, reported t ha t of the 5,000 teachersin the e lementary schools of Vienna only 12 are Jews.In fact, the vice-mayor of Vienna, Dr . Press, announcedon November 18 t h a t only Christ ian teachers are now beingemployed by the city. A new t rade law was enacted onNovember 9 which authorized the s ta te economic corpora-tions alone to issue certificates required of those engagedin commercial enterprises. Jews are, however, barred fromthese bodies and have slight chance of obtaining thecertificates. Another section of the t rade law bars i t inerantmerchants , canvassers, and salesmen of which there areapproximately ten thousand of the Jewish faith in Austria.Typical of the indirect methods of freeing the professionsof Jews was the social reform bill proposed by the govern-men t on J anua ry 31. I t called for the cancellation of allexisting contracts of doctors employed by the sick fundpanels (approximately 1,000 of whom are Jews) and pro-vided for re-engagement only after a process of "selection."A report made on M a y 28, 1935, by the Union of JewishPhysicians was forced to conclude t ha t

" the position of the young Jewish physicians in themedical inst i tut ions continues to be the subject ofrepeated efforts, petitions, representations and negotia-tions, and we mus t regretfully s ta te t ha t we have notachieved anyth ing in this regard."

Practically no Jewish applications are being accepted inany hospitals; and wholesale dismissals are taking placedaily.

The Association of Austro-German Aryan Lawyers hasbeen most active in boycott ing Jewish colleagues and inins t i tu t ing a policy of constant discrimination against Jews


in the legal profession. Because of the close connectionbetween Austria and Germany in the theatrical profession,Jews are being eliminated from that field also.

The Austrian government itself has revoked the citizen-ship of 76 Jewish citizens naturalized since 1919. At least3,000 Jews in Austria are thus in danger of being deprivedof their political liberties, guaranteed internationally in theTreaty of Saint Germain. Furthermore, the governmenthas proceeded with plans to separate Jewish and non-Jewishschool children in the Austrian school system. The law isostensibly designed to "collect non-Catholic pupils into oneparallel sub-division especially in cases where there is over-crowding in the regular schools." The government protestedits good intentions, but Jewish leaders feared that it repre-sented a first step towards introduction of an "Aryan"clause in the schools. However the Jewish Peoples' Partycountered with a proposal that a Jewish school system beset up in Austria, with Jewish teachers. Ex-Deputy RobertStrieker welcomed these "ghetto schools" suggested by thegovernment; and the orthodox Jewish leaders were inclinedto agree with him. On the other hand, the leaders of theVienna Jewish community and the Union of Austrian Jewsannounced that they would refuse to succumb to thementality created by the new racial anti-Semitism.

In Geneva, in the Fall of 1934, Chancellor Schuschniggpledged that the Jews would be accorded full equality inAustria. Yet, on November 30 there came a veiled threatto the Jews as he declared, at the inaugural session of theAustrian Federal Diet, that Austria "shall remain Germanand also Christian." On February 27, 1935, while in Londonseeking international financial assistance, Dr. Schuschniggdenied that the Austrian government intended to expeleast-European Jews or to reduce the number of Jews inthe professions. He pointed out that "in reality there is noJewish question . . . in Austria" because "the FederalConstitution is based on the complete equality of allcitizens, without religious or national distinction." It was,he said, "even in the interests of the Jewish members ofthese professions to restrict further access to them." Heexplained that the government was in no way animatedby an anti-Semitic spirit. Yet, in reply, on June 23, the


Association of Jewish Front Soldiers in its official magazine,The Jewish Frontier, charged that "there is quite a dif-ference between the theory which government authoritiesare advancing with regard to the Jews and the way theJews are treated in practice."

Undoubtedly, the government is being driven by thepropaganda wave which the Nazis have unleashed. Organ-izations to oust Jews from Austrian business life by theestablishment of a boycott of Jewish firms have sprung up.Although the government has not officially encouragedthese programs, it has allowed agitation to continue unmo-lested. Meanwhile, the proletarianization of the Jewishmiddle classes of Austria is continuing. The Jewish com-munity organization has appropriated 2,500,000 shillingsas a preliminary budget for social relief during the year1935. During the past two years, it was reported on April26, 25,000 Jews had left Vienna; 55,000 of the 176,000Jews of Vienna are now registered with the welfare depart-ment of the Jewish community for the purpose of receivingrelief.

In the face of these conditions, the Austrian Jews havenot failed to take a positive stand. Captain Edler vonFriedmann, president of the League of Jewish War Veterans,declared on May 8, 1935 at a mass meeting of Jewishveterans that: "We do not ask for equality of rights.We do not beg for equality. We demand it." He pointedto the loyalty which bound the Jews of Austria to theirFatherland, the service which they had contributed to itsdefence during the war. For, despite the consolation givenfrom time t<3 time by government leaders, the Jews ofAustria are faced with the fact that the government hasgranted subsidies to the Catholic and Protestant churches(15 million shillings to the former, 600 thousand to thelatter) while completely ignoring the Jewish community,despite the fact that Jews pay taxes and are double thenumber of Protestants in Austria.

HUNGARY

"Though the numerus clausus law of 1920 and otherlegislation still stand as gaunt reminders of the days whenanti-Jewish feeling was high in Hungary, the present


government has shown an encouraging attitude in wardingoff agitation against the Jews and avowing its belief inthe equality of all citizens. Count Stephen Bethlen, leaderof the government party, of which the present PremierGoemboes is a member, warned on March 21 that Hungarymust lay aside all thoughts of anti-Jewish policy andprogram. On December 27, 1934, Dr. Tibor Szitvay,former Minister of Justice and now a member of Parliament,declared that the government was determined "to empha-size the traditional Hungarian spirit which knows noreligious hatred." He especially urged that HungarianJewish citizens who had grievances against the governmentsubmit their complaints freely to officials. Minister ofEducation Homan spoke in the same vein before theparliamentary deputies on May 13, 1935. However, whenon June 21, Rudolf Ruppert, Catholic member of parliament,asked for a repeal of the numerus clausus law for the univer-sities which had been passed in 1920 (and which was thesubject of a minorities petition to the League of Nationsin 1923), his remarks were not well received.

The Magyar Front, official organ of the Hungarian Asso-ciation of War Veterans, also came forward on March 11,1935, with a denunciation of attempts to stir up religiousdifferences among its members. "We do not deny," thestatement ran, "any of our comrades who fought with usand bled with us." There are, it was pointed out, about600,000 war veterans in Hungary, five percent of whom areJews. The action of the Jewish War Veterans Associationin forming a national Jewish party to participate in theparliamentary elections for the first time was sharplydenounced by leading members of the Jewish communityof Budapest on March 17. This move, however, points tothe growth of a fear that the orientation of Hungarianforeign policy toward Nazi Germany, as well as the agitationof Nazi groups within Hungary, may prove dangerous.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

The Czechoslovakian government has remained thestaunch advocate of democracy and equal treatment ofall inhabitants regardless of origin or belief, in a Europewhich has come to show little respect for these values. The


year was noteworthy principally because of the celebrationof the 85th birthday of President Thomas G. Masaryk,who has always stood as an apostle of enlightenment, andin whose honor a colony in Palestine bearing his name wasestablished.

On April 29, a number of Nazi leaders were imprisonedfor organizing a boycott movement against Jewish lawyersand doctors. In the course of the trial, it was revealed thatDr. Friedrich Chvatel, the Nazi leader, was in direct com-munication with Dr. Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda.On November 15, an entire edition of a Czechoslovakianversion of the "Protocols" was confiscated. On December21, Karel Capek, the leading writer of Czechoslovakia,issued a proclamation condemning the "spiritual German-ization" which anti-Semitism represents. This statementwas evoked by anti-Jewish riots which took place in Pragueon December 25. Dr. Cerni, Czechoslovakian Minister ofInterior, warned that "the government is firmly determinedto protect all citizens irrespective of creed, and possessessufficient force to carry out its determination." Thedemonstration was led by Czech nationalists and wasprincipally directed against Germans, but was later turnedagainst Jews. The government immediately mobilizedpolice forces, confiscated nationalist papers for publishinginciting reports, and posted public warnings throughoutthe city.

In the German university at Prague, itself, an anti-Jewishdemonstration of the students broke out on March 18.Pamphlets calling for a general strike against "the excessivenumber of Jews enrolled" were passed out. The situationin the German university was strikingly revealed by thesuicide of Dr. Joseph Gach, talented Jewish teacher in theuniversity, who in a last letter wrote that he had beendriven to take his life by the incessant anti-Jewish persecu-tion experienced at the hands of Professor Schloffer, thedirector of the clinic, and Dr. Wendell his assistant. Legalaction began on April 15 against the fifteen physicians inthe clinic who declared they would not work with a Jew.A parliamentary request for an investigation of conditionsat the university was made. The entire Czechoslovakian


press soundly condemned the growing spirit of race hatredunleashed by Nazi influence among the German minority.

This growing spirit was well illustrated in the electionsof May 20, 1935. Although the National Socialist Partyhad been declared illegal, the "Suddendeutsche Party" ledby Konrad Henlein polled 250,000 votes, or two-thirds ofall German votes, and was thus enabled to win 45 of the300 seats in Parliament. They polled the greatest numberof votes of all parties and became equal in strength to thestrongest, the Agrarian party. Hitler's racial theories areaccepted as a fundamental principle..

Politically, the Jewish minority was disappointed atthe failure to insure representation for the Jews in parlia-ment. An exception was about to be made to the generalrule that small parties must obtain at least 120,000 votes,before being placed on the election list, in order to permita lower figure for the Polish and Jewish groups. However,it was found impossible to make these concessions; andthere are at present only two Jews in parliament. Thesetwo seats were gained by virtue of an agreement with theSocial Democrats. As a result Dr. Emil Margulies andother members of the Zionist Executive have resignedfrom the Jewish Party in protest. Certain Mizrachi circlesalso seceded from the Jewish party.

Prague has been one of the principal cities of refuge forJews fleeing from Germany. Early in the fall of 1934,however, it was disclosed that most of the 3,800 refugeeswho fled after the Nazis came into power had been sentto Palestine; that only 350 remained, and that of thisnumber, only 100 are in need of relief and assistance. Thework of occupational retraining of the younger refugeesis continuing. New agricultural cooperatives have beenfounded in the Carpatho-Russian section, special creditsbeing advanced by the American Joint Distribution Com-mittee and the Jewish Colonization Association.

ROUMANIA

For the Jews of Roumania the year started auspiciouslyenough when on October 12, addressing the Congress ofthe Orthodox Church Union, King Carol made an appeal,as a Christian, "to all members of other faiths to aid in the


fight for unity and for a united Roumania." The LiberalParty which, since the death of Premier Ion Duca, hasbeen committed to hostility toward the anti-Semitic IronGuard, has as the ruling party attempted to carry out thespirit of King Carol's exhortation. The Iron Guard organiza-tion was dissolved, although illegal attacks upon Jewishtravelers particularly had been instigated by this faction,which is led by Codreanu and composed largely of des-peradoes. The fact that it has close contact with the Nazisof Germany is becoming generally recognized and hascaused loss of much popular support.

By far the most telling anti-Jewish drive has been ledby Vaida-Voevod, former Minister of Interior and a leaderof the National Peasant Party. He is attemping to converthis party to what he calls the "numerus valachius," asystem of quotas in the professions and occupations basedupon racial and national origin. His propaganda hasappealed principally to the large creditors in urban centers,disgruntled politicians of opposition parties, and univer-sity youth. Perhaps the greatest obstacle in his path is thefact that Roumania has scarcely any unemployment (thefigure is given as 20,000). Four-fifths of the inhabitants arepractically self-supporting peasants; and the governmenthas set out deliberately to reduce their debts and obtainhigh prices for their products. Furthermore, in the ranksof the National Peasant Party, Vaida-Voevod has metwith the determined opposition of Dr. Julius Maniu, leaderof the party, who has refused to capitulate in favor of anyrestrictions on the rights of Jews. Early in February, 1935,the National Peasant Party officially decided not to incor-porate anti-Semitic planks in its general program. ProfessorNicolae Costachescu, one of the leaders of the party,declared on November 11, 1934, that "our party is neitheragainst the Jews or against the minorities . . . (and) . . .has no room for anti-Semitism or for agitation againstminorities." He assured the Jewish population that theyneed have no anxiety, "for people who believe in democracyhave no room for anti-Semitism." Nevertheless Vaida-Vpevod continued his agitation, and, in March 1935, wasrelieved of the leadership of the National Peasant Partyin Trans3'lvania and threatened with expulsion altogether,


because of his insistence on anti-Jewish legislation. Heannounced his intention of organizing a separate party and,on March 22, openly advocated a boycott of shops of Jews.The party would be called, he announced, the ChristianNational Peasant Party, because Jews as a minority shouldnot be allowed to "influence the spiritual life of Roumania."The League of Nations, he believed, should examine theJewish question and decide that in those territories wherethere is a large number of Jews, there should be a resortto emigration.

Although nominally disclaiming any intention of givingway before this propaganda, the Liberal Party has sponsoredlegislation which the Jews of Roumania view with greatapprehension. On March 31, 1934, the Roumanian govern-ment introduced in the Chamber of Deputies a draft lawdesigned to require that ninety percent of the personnelin the merchant-marine be of Roumanian citizenship.And, in July 1934, the government submitted to parliamenta law for the utilization of Roumanian personnel in com-mercial, and public, enterprises of all kinds. According toArticle 1 of this law, it was stipulated that eighty percentof the personnel employed in these enterprises be "Rouma-nians," and twenty percent, "foreigners." Article 7 of thelaw obliged employers to make an annual report to theMinister of Industry indicating the numbers of Roumanianand foreign personnel employed. On January 23, 1935, theMinister of Industry issued an Administrative Decreein which he set forth a model table to be filled out by theemployers in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 7.This table divided the personnel into two categories,"Roumanian citizens" and "foreigners," but had an addi-tional column headed "ethnic origin." The latter categoryappeared a wedge for the introduction of distinctionsbetween Roumanians, on grounds of national or racialorigin. It was evidently a divergence from the terms ofthe law, and seemed to Roumanian Jewish leaders toforeshadow a sinister design toward Jews. The Union ofRoumanian Jews filed a protest against this legislationwith the appropriate authorities as well as with the King.They pointed out that any act directed at infringing theelementary rights of the Jews of Roumania, would ultimately


harm the Roumanian people. "Problems of the state arenot solved," the report ran, "by threatening to take thebread out of the mouths of certain citizens and giving itto other citizens, but by assuring bread to all." Representa-tions were made by the United Roumanian Jews of Americaand the American Jewish Committee to the RoumanianMinister at Washington. He gave assurances that thepurpose of the third question was merely statistical andinformational, without any desire to introduce ethnicqualifications.

Nevertheless, this law gave some indication of the trendin Roumania. All countries have certain anti-Jewish threadsin their fabric. But in Roumania the growing influence ofleaders like Goga and Cuza among the intellectual andprofessional groups, has even affected the policy of theLiberal government, which seeks to maintain itself inpower. The Peasant Party, also, seems to have expressedits opposition to the anti-Semitic program of Vaida-Voevodprincipally on practical grounds, rather than because ofany positive conviction. On June 13, 1935, the RoumanianMinister of Education, Dr. Constantin Angelescu, presid-ing over a conference of university directors, declared thata radical curtailment of the number of students in the col-leges of medicine, law and commerce particularly wasnecessary. The conference, thereafter, decided to introducerestrictions on the basis of "intellectual ability." Thisprovision, it was feared, was a disguised method of prevent-ing the admissior^ of Jewish students.

The universities of Roumania have always been the centerof anti-Jewish activities and agitation. Early in April, severeclashes took place at Bucharest University where Jewishstudents were attacked in the laboratories and class rooms.As a result, the ban on the anti-Semitic student congress inCrajovawas lifted and the Jewish population of that town,numbering 13,000, were forced to remain in their homes dur-ing the event. After the riots, Bucharest University was closedfor six days. A statement signed by 150 Christian studentsexpressing sympathy with the Jewish victims of these riots,and blaming politicians for the disorders, was issued to thepress with the explanation that "the Jews are not the causeof unemployment among the intellectuals." As a result


of these outbreaks, the directors of the Roumanian univer-sities in conference decided, in order to maintain order inthe universities, to abolish their autonomy and permit theState to punish students guilty of inciting to riot.

But, under the cover of administrative regulations, certainsteps have been taken which indicate the increasing possi-bility of the introduction of distinctions between Roumanianson religious or ethnic grounds. The students in the BucharestUniversity were required on May 1, 1935, to fill out specialforms stating their "ethnic origin." University authoritiesexplained that this request came directly from the Ministerof Education to aid in establishing a restriction on thenumber of national minority students. An association ofChristian lawyers is sponsoring agitation for the introduc-tion of a racial clause in the legal profession. Eleven formercabinet ministers, refusing to give their names, issued aviolently worded anti-Jewish manifesto on March 31, 1935,advocating the introduction of the racial restriction in allbranches of Roumanian life.

Yet there remain certain rays of hope that this campaignwill not be successful. The Roumanian War Veterans'League rejected a proposal for ousting its Jewish members.On June 24, the Supreme Administrative Court in Czernowitzruled that the liquidation of the representative body of theJewish community there by the Ministry of Public Worshipwas illegal and violative of the Constitution. Mr. CharlesA. Davila, Roumanian Minister in the United States, onFebruary 17, 1935, issued the following statement:

"It is my belief that a country like ours, with a fourmillion population of minorities, cannot afford to beanything but tolerant and liberal. . . . We cannot beautocrats and terrorists, otherwise large countries, theBig Powers, would be autocratic with us, and we wouldn'thave the moral authority to oppose them. Only anatmosphere of liberty could give us the cohesion whichwe need. Yes, I am for the consciousness of the nationalcharacter and national virtues, but I am against racialdiscrimination and against oppression."

And, just as the assurance of King Carol opened the yearfor the Jews of Roumania, so on June 24 he informed the


president of the Palestine-Roumania Chamber of Com-merce that "the future of the Jews in Roumania is safe."This optimism, however, is not shared by the Jewish leaderswho are forced to apprehension over many alarming pos-sibilities. They see a government attempting to remainloyal to liberal principles in the face of an increasing agita-tion. And, they notice certain signs of hesitancy andcapitulation which they fear may have serious consequences.

GREECE

In March, former Premier Euleutherios Venizelos directeda revolt against the present Tsaldaris government in anattempt to establish a Fascist regime which, it was deducedfrom the previous attitude of the leader of the revolt, wouldinclude the elimination of Jews from Greek life. But therevolt was crushed successfully; Minister of War Kondylisin command of the government army, visited the Rabbi ofKavalla and expressed his satisfaction with the patrioticattitude demonstrated by the Jews of Salonica and through-out northern Greece. Large numbers of Jewish volunteersjoined the army in response to the call of the government.Following the revolt, opposition newspapers were banned,including the anti-Semitic press. The rebel Fardis, leaderof a progrom in Salonica in 1929, was arrested.

To the report that the government had agreed to segregatethe Jews in their own electoral college, Premier Kondylisreplied, on February 8, 1935, that the government stoodfirmly on the principle of equality and would never acceptsuch a segregation. A decree abolishing the separate elec-toral college for the Jews of Salonica had been published onOctober 16. Furthermore, on May 20 a decree prohibitingthe press from libeling any religion was issued by the govern-ment. It was announced, also, on April 25, that a specialdepartment for national minorities was to be set up in theGreek government, whose function it would be to insurethe proper observance of Greece's international obligations.On March 28, the Greek government ordered that all anti-Jewish organizations, particularly the E E E, the GreekNazis, should be disbanded.


Especially in Salonika, the economic condition of theJewish community has become intolerable. A total of11,022 families received Passover food from the Salonikacommunity in 1935, three-quarters of the entire Jewishpopulation of 15,000. Upon visiting the city on June 21,the Minister of Interior, Kyros, was so impressed by thepoverty and misery of the Jewish. population that hedecided to allocate a substantial sum for the immediaterepair of houses in the slum district. Emigration is a pri-mary necessity; and on May 26 thousands of Jews stormedthe Palestine office in Salonika in the hope of obtaining visasto proceed to Palestine. Dissatisfaction has been rife overthe methods of the Jewish Agency in distributing immigra-tion certificates.

After the British Legation had complained that Greecehad become the center for an organization furthering illegalimmigration of Jews into Palestine, the Greek government,on November 1, 1935, established a strict control over themovements of Jewish travelers. It was announced onNovember 30 that no foreign Jew would henceforth bepermitted to enter Greece except by special permission ofthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On December 3, the GreekMinister to the United States denied the report. But, onDecember 27 the Chief of Police of Salonika said that thegovernment had not withdrawn its order of November 30and that "not even one Jewish foreigner can enter thecountry without a special authorization from the Ministryof Foreign Affairs." On December 16, Premier Tsaldarisannounced that because the order restricting entrance ofJews into Greece resulted in damage to Greek business,it would be applied only to Jews from Germany and Poland.

BALTIC COUNTRIES

The National Socialist propaganda center in Berlin hasdirected a special offensive against the Baltic countries,in an attempt to win them away from Russian influence.In Lithuania, propaganda has been directed particularlyinto anti-Semitic channels in order to disguise the immediateobjective of Nazi foreign policy: the recapture of Memel.A trial of 126 Nazis charged with a plot to regain part of


Lithuania by armed force for Germany began on December13. When the German government concentrated troopsalong the Lithuanian border on January 20, the Lithuaniansdid likewise and a serious war threat was created. NinetyNazis were, nevertheless, sentenced by court martial toterms of death and imprisonment. Protest meetings wereheld throughout Germany. Great Britain, France, andItaly warned Lithania that the statute governing the ter-ritory must be observed. As a result of this intervention,President Smetona commuted the death sentenced of fourNazis to life imprisonment.

The past year was not an encouraging one for the Jewsof Lithuania. An economic survey, made public by theAssociation of Jewish Credit Kassas on June 25, 1935,described in detail the difficulties affecting the Jewishmerchants, peddlers, and artisans. Three thousand Jewishfamilies, half of the entire Jewish population of Kaunas,received Passover aid. A most striking indication of the .increasing impoverishment is the growing Jewish emigrationfrom Lithuania. At present it constitutes eighty-fivepercent of the total emigration from the country. Theprincipal refuge has been Palestine.

Nazi propaganda among the peasants has taken theform of urging them to boycott Jewish peddlers and mer-chants. On April 20, the Lithuanian Minister of Interiorinstructed local authorities to take firmer measures againstthe distribution by Nazi agents of anti-Jewish propaganda.There followed a memorandum submitted to the govern-ment by Chief Rabbi Spiro. However, the Verslas organ-ization of merchants and artisans, engaged in competingwith the Jews, has spread a great deal of unrest throughoutthe country. The Lithuanian government even allowedthis organization the use of the official radio station for thebroadcasting of anti-Jewish speeches at its conference onDecember 2. A unique example of the governmentalattitude was its prohibition of newspaper reports of, orcomment upon, an interview granted the Jewish TelegraphicAgency by the Minister of the Interior, in which the latterstressed the friendly cooperation which should exist betweenJew and non-Jew in the country. Other acts of the govern-ment have been similarly exasperating: nationalization of


the flax export trade which is principally in the hands ofJews; and cancellation of the customary $4,000 subsidy forthe only Jewish teachers seminary in Lithuania.

Other ominous signs were the complete exclusion of theJewish students from the medical school of the Universityof Kaunas and the dismissal of Dr. Noah Shapiro of thesame university from the medical faculty because of theagitation of anti-Semitic students. In addition the decliningpolitical importance of the Lithuanian Jews was emphasizedby the results of the November national elections in themunicipalities wherein the Jews lost a total of 25 seats.

A dictatorial regime led by the agricultural elementsand the political parties of the center has been rulingLatvia during the past year. Martial law gave way to aone party state as against the extreme left and the con-servative elements, principally the large landowners. TheLatvian Fascist party has been declared illegal.

But, according to the survey made by a Jewish TelegraphicAgency correspondent late in December of 1934, the Jewsof Latvia are suffering new discriminations, reports ofwhich have hardly broken through the strict censorshipwhich prevails. A new chauvinism has arisen which tendsto disregard the autonomy of minority groups, and reflectsitself in dismissals of Jewish physicians, especially thosesuspected of the slightest socialistic sympathies or affilia-tions. It is reported that the German Ambassador in Rigahas been active in encouraging this wave of anti-Semitism.However that may be, it is true that the methods employedin Latvia are very similar to those of Nazi Germany. Untilthe Fall of 1934 the boycott in Latvia of German productswas complete. But, the government has ordered the boycottcommittee to stop its activities and the leaders have beenarrested.

However, in March 1935, two leaders of the anti-SemiticPekonkrust Party which demands the introduction of an"Aryan" paragraph and is strongly sympathetic with NaziGermany, were convicted as conspirators seeking the over-throw of the government.


Yet, on the other hand, the Latvian Minister of theInterior closed the Jewish Artisans Federation for fourmonths and dissolved the Jewish working class organiza-tions such as the Socialist Bund and the Poale Zion, sendingtheir leaders to concentration camps. Later, the artisansorganization was legalized after the leaders had beenchosen with the consent of the government. But theleaders of the Poale Zion were forced to leave the countryon November 8, 1934.

As a result of this policy of suppression, no delegatesfrom Latvia were allowed to be sent the World ZionistCongress in Lucerne in August, 1935. The governmenthas prohibited th*e existence of political parties, amongwhich it includes the Zionist Organization. Although theJewish National Fund has not been prohibited, the authori-ties have issued an order that all collection boxes of thefund be removed from Jewish homes. Also, the governmenthas withdrawn subsidies from private Jewish educationalinstitutions, many of which have been forced to close forlack of funds.

* * . *Early in October, 1934, a parliamentary crisis and the

concomitant confusion led the Cabinet to rule Esthoniaby martial law. The government, representing a coalitionof the Centrist and Farmers' parties, has been opposed byradical groups of the Right and Left. In this respect,Esthonia has followed the lead of her neighbor, Latvia,in suspending democratic rule and adopting an opendictatorship. In March, 1935, a one-party system wasestablished by decree and all dissident parties were out-lawed. The single legal party is the Fatherland party whosestated object is to promote civil peace, national politicalideals, and solidarity between classes.

The Jews in Esthonia have, since the war, enjoyed awide autonomy in their cultural affairs and a real equalityin law. The strong German minority, however, has feltthe effects of Nazism. But, the state has not hesitated inrepressing such manifestations. An official investigationwas made by the government into Nazi influences in theadministrative staffs of the schools. This Nazi activity ledthe Assembly of Esthonian students to demand the numerus


clausus for minority students in the universities. Althoughthe demand was aimed primarily against the Germanminority, it would of course affect the Jews. As a result,the Jewish students have been placed in an awkwardposition: as a minority they resent a numerus clausus; butthey also see the danger of the Nazi influence.

Yet, under the corporative state, the Jews of Esthoniamay look forward to greater political representation. Here-tofore, only the city councils have had Jewish members incertain localities where the Jews lived in sufficient num-bers, but Jews have not been represented in the nationalparliament.

POLAND

The distress and despair of Polish Jewry has come to beregarded as chronic. It has existed so long and upon sosteady a level that distinctions between degrees of sufferingcannot easily be made. However, the past year was aparticularly bad one for the Jews of Poland. So desperatehas their situation become, in fact, that the declaration ofForeign Minister Beck at the League Assembly in Octoberof 1934, unilaterally refusing to accept further internationalminority protection, was accepted by the Jewish leadersas an event of relatively slight importance. For, theimmediate problem of the Polish Jews, the last year hasshown, is the desperate economic degradation which theyhave experienced and which shows no sign of amelioration.In December, 1934, Dr. Rautenstreich, Jewish member ofthe Sejm, speaking before the Parliamentary Budget Com-mittee, declared that "sixty percent of the Jews in the smalltownships are in dire need of charity." One out of everyfour Jews in Warsaw is starving. Fifty percent of the Jewsin the city of Lvov are without food supply, as are thirtypercent of the Jews in Lodz and Bialystok. Thousands ofJews suffered from the intense cold of Warsaw, and onJanuary 11, 1935, besieged the offices of the Jewish com-munity asking for coal.

The results of this condition have already been man-ifested. Mortality has increased alarmingly, particularlyamong the children. It was reported late in 1934, that inmany of the smaller Jewish towns, every fourth Jewish


child is born dead, or dies immediately after birth. Toz,the Jewish Health Organization of Poland, reported onJune 18, 1935, that 40,000 Jewish children were in needof medical and sanitary assistance. Tuberculosis is on theincrease; and official statistics revealed that insanity hasbecome more prevalent, so that now the Jewish proportionis double that of the general population. There is an ever-increasing number of suicides, to prevent which, it wasreported on December 3, iron bars are being built on tothe windows and balconies of upper floors of tenementhouses inhabited by Jewish families.

These conditions are due, of course, to certain permanenteconomic factors which have been aggravated since thewar chiefly: the impoverishment of the middle classes; thegrowth of cooperatives; and state control over industry.But, in addition, there are immediate causes for the presentcondition of the Jews in Poland. An Artisans' Law whichwent into effect on January 1, 1935, made it necessary forJewish workers to pay heavy fees and pass severe testsbefore carrying on their trade. The government placesheavy taxes upon the urban municipalities, thereby layinga disproportionate burden upon the Jewish town-dwellers.It is claimed that the Jews, though composing only tenpercent of the population, are contributing as much asforty percent of the government budget. On February 22,the Minister of Finance issued a decree providing thattaxes paid by Jews in Poland for the maintenance of Jewishcommunal institutions should be increased so as to equalfrom fifteen percent to thirty percent of their generalincome tax.

Anti-Jewish propaganda and the activities of suchorganizations as the proscribed Naras (National Radicals)and the Endeks (National Democrats) have continuedunabated. This agitation resulted on June 9, 1935, in severeriots in Grodno when 60 Jews were injured, three of themcritically, two of whom have since died. The Mayor of themunicipality issued an appeal to Polish youth "not todisgrace Polish tradition" and the police forces took stepsto preserve peace. The riots followed a clash betweenJewish and non-Jewish youth at a dance hall. Newspapersreporting the details of the riot were confiscated by the


Polish government. The Minister of Interior received adelegation from the Jewish community of Grodno whichlisted in detail the excesses and their victims, and demandedprotection.

Previously, on •November 14, 1934, at Krakow, bandsof Endek students attacked Jewish students. Four of theassailants were sentenced to prison. The old argumentthat the number of Jewish students in medical facultiesshould be restricted because insufficient bodies of Jewishdead are furnished for use in anatomy classes was againrevived by the Nara students in Warsaw in a disturbanceon December 16. The dean of the faculty there, however,pointed out that it was not the duty of the students toprovide the corpses.

The Endek Party gained an alarming victory in themunicipal elections at Lodz on December 21. They suc-ceeded in obtaining the posts of mayor, two vice-mayorali-ties, and five other municipal executive offices. The 250,000Jews of the city dreaded the consequences.

Shortly after the elections, a law was introduced to dis-miss all Jewish employees in municipal institutions. Aftera stormy all-night session on March 15, the Jewish membersof the council, joined by members of the government party,Socialists, and the Christian parties, walked out of themeeting place leaving no quorum for the passage of thebill. The government commissioner, acting as presidentof the municipal council, refused, one week later, to permita vote on the proposal, thus intervening on behalf of thecivil rights of the Jews of Poland. He announced that sucha law would contravene the Polish constitution. When, onMarch 27, the anti-Semitic majority of the council attemptedto eliminate from the municipal budget any subventionsfor Jewish organizations on the grounds that "Jews areonly guests of Poland," the government commissioneragain votoed it, saying: "The Jewish relief organizationsare doing great and good work and are, therefore, entitledto benefit from the municipal budget."

The ritual murder cry was again raised twice duringthe past year in Poland: in Ruda, near Kattowice, where alost Christian child was finally discovered wandering in aneighboring village; and in Szduvowiet where two members


of the Nara party accused a Jewish baker of ritual murder,in order to cover up their own crime of killing and robbinga town official.

Nor has there been any political security for the Jewsof Poland. On February 14, 1935, Dr. Joshua Thon,expressing the indignation of the Jewish population againstthe government, refused to vote for the government'sbudget, and was joined by the other Jewish members ofthe parliament. 'We are," Dr. Thon declareed, "greatlydisturbed by the fact that the government is not makingeven the slightest endeavor to ease the fate of the Jewishpopulation." He pointed out that while the government isnot permitting violence against the Jews, it disregards theattacks on them. Furthermore, he stated, the governmentseems desirous of eliminating the autonomy of the Jewishcommunity which was guaranteed by the Polish constitution.

A new Polish constitution was signed on April 23, andbecame effective on the following day. Under it the Presidentis the absolute ruler of the country, and parliament hasonly a minor governing role. In protest over the new con-stitution, which, as originally drafted, deprived Jews andother minorities of the right of proportional representation,Dr. Joshua Thon resigned from the presidency of theJewish Parliamentary Club. He made this move becausethe Club had decided not to vote against the new constitu-tion, but only to refrain from voting for it. On May 27the government modified the election regulations by provid-ing a greater number of seats for cities with large Jewishpopulations.

The death of Marshal Pilsudski, dictator of Poland, earlyin May was another blow to the political security of theJews of Poland. Although he had carefully refrained fromtaking a public and positive stand on the Jewish questionin recent years, it was realized that Pilsudski's influencewas a restraining factor of decisive benefit. Memorialmeetings in his honor were held throughout Poland bythe Jewish communities. All Jewish boys born during themonth of May in Rodno, Poland were, the communitydecided, to be named Josef for the late Marshal.

The evolution in Polish foreign policy which has takenthe form of a flirtatious friendship with Nazi Germany is


another cause for great concern on the part of the PolishJews. During the past year, the Jewish Deputies of Par-liament have constantly pointed to the danger of suchan orientation. They have done so not merely on theoreticalgrounds but also because the government has been inclinedto sacrifice the rights of the Jews to its desire for a friendshipwith the Nazis. When General Goering visited Warsawin January, Haint, Warsaw Yiddish daily, was confiscatedfor having published a critical editorial. The Minister ofGermany to Poland has warmly praised Hitler in manypublic pronouncements. Relations between Poland andFrance, her one-time ally, have become increasinglystrained. The declaration of Foreign Minister Beck atGeneva, repudiating international control of her minorities,was treated by the Jewish deputies as dangerous principallybecause it indicated the adoption of a course favorable andsimilar to that of Nazi Germany. However, as the yearproceeded, and as Poland noted the isolation to which shewas being forced, an attempt was made to regain Frenchconfidence.

Despite the opportunities offered for recourse to theLeague of Nations, Polish Jewry does not seem inclinedto employ the Minorities Treaties or to go against the wishesof the government. In a speech before the Sejm on Novem-ber 30, 1934, Dr. Thon emphasized that "so long as I haveanything to do with Jewish politics in Poland we shall notbring our complaints to the forum of the League of Nations."

The Jews of Poland, however, are refusing to becomedemoralized over their condition. The past year has beensignificant for the growth of national vocational organiza-tions of Jewish workers, particularly farmers and engineers.A league of Jewish technical associations is being planned.The Joint Distribution Committee has intensified itscampaign of assistance to Jewish artisans so that they mayobtain the necessary licenses. In order to ameliorate theconditions of the Jewish medical students and complywith their requests, the Warsaw Jewish community decidedto furnish the corpses of indigent Jews for use in anatomyclasses. On December 19, 1934, all Jewish cooperativesin Poland formed a united body to protect their existenceand to combat the competition of non-Jewish cooperatives


which receive extensive credit from government funds. Acentral union of all Jewish hospitals in Poland is also beingconsidered.

During the past year, there have been repeated proteststo the Polish authorities on behalf of the Tarbuth (Hebrew)schools. Not only has the government withdrawn its sub-sidy to these institutions, but it has ruled that they mustgive a certain number of courses in the Polish language.On the other hand, the schools maintained by the AgudathIsrael were on June 12, 1935, given the full rights of govern-ment schools under an order issued by the Ministry ofEducation.

The Anti-Nazi Boycott Committee of Poland was closeddown by the government on June 23, and all newspaperspublishing the fact were confiscated. The official reasongiven by the government was mismanagement, but actuallyit appears that the desire to negotiate a trade agreementwith Germany is the real cause. Also, the offices of Agro-Yid, the organization established to stimulate the migrationof Polish Jews to Soviet Russia, were closed by authoritiesfollowing a campaign by the organization to removeimpoverished Jews from Poland to Biro-Bidjan. Thegovernment gave as a reason for closing the office that theorganization did not observe its by-laws.

Toward the end of the year, in all Jewish communitiesof the world, a special appeal was made for funds to relievethe distress of the impoverished Polish Jews. In England,this drive was conducted separately from the appeal forGerman Jewry. Because of the decline of the value of thedollar, and the deep misery of Polish Jewry, assistance ismost urgently needed for rehabilitation and reconstruction.

SOVIET RUSSIA

The increased interest in Biro-Bidjan was the outstandingevent of the year in Soviet Russia. I t was reported onMarch 15, 1935, that more than 1,000 Jewish families hadmigrated there from January 1 to March 8. The quotafor the next quarter of the year was to be 3,000. M. KalininChairman of the Union Central Executive Committee,announced on November 5 that the government desired


to see a Jewish Socialist Republic in Biro-Bidjan withinthe next five or eight years. Joseph Lieberberg, author andformer head of the Jewish cultural division of the UkrainianAcademy of Knowledge, has been appointed head of theorganization committee for Biro-Bidjan. A Soviet con-ference called to appoint an all Jewish-local governmentfor Biro-Bidjan opened in the territory on December 19,1934.

In May, 1935, the Soviet government decided to makeplans for the mass admission of Jewish immigrants fromPoland and other neighboring countries into Biro-Bidjan.It is planned to permit 4,500 foreign Jews, who meetcertain requirements, to enter. Settlement of German-Jewish refugees will also be encouraged. On May 15, M.Kantorovich, vice-chairman of the government planningcommission, announced a five-year plan for Biro-Bidjanincluding a total population of 220,000 of whom 120,000will be new immigrants, the establishment of a metallurgicalbase employing 10,000 workers, and the introduction of atrans-Siberian airline. What appears to be a surprisingdeviation from Communist principles was announced onJune 20 by the government, when the right of privateproperty in land was recognized in Biro-Bidjan. Whilerequired to work on the collective farms, Jewish colonistsin Biro-Bidjan may, within certain limits, obtain landwhose produce would belong to them individually, andnot to the collective. It was explained that "the peculiarqualities and conditions of the Far East must be takeninto consideration."

Following their three week tour throughout Biro-Bidjan,Dr. Joseph Rosen, representative of the Joint DistributionCommittee, and Dr. Jacob Begelnitsky, of the Ort, pre-sented a report on November 8, 1934, dealing with thefuture prospects of the autonomous territory. They con-cluded that, although government subsidies were necessaryin order to clear and drain the land, the development planwas feasible and desirable. As for the threat of war in theFar East, Dr. Rosen concluded that "with the presentpolitical situation in Europe it is not easy to say where thedanger for the Jewish masses is greater—in the Far Eastor in the Near West."


It was announced, also, on March 15, 1935, that the fifthautonomous Jewish region in the Soviet Union, Larindorf,had been constituted in Crimea where colonization workis being conducted by the American Jewish Joint Agricul-tural Corporation. The new autonomous region consistsof 50 collective villages. There are, in addition to Biro-Bidjan in the Far East, three other autonomous regions inthe Ukraine: Kalinindorf, Stalindorf, and Zlatapol. Aconference of delegates from these regions took place inMoscow on January 11 where the economic results andcultural progress of the collectives was emphasized. Dr.David Lwowitch, leader of the Ort, reported on March 25that "the situation of the Jews in Soviet Russia hasimproved tremendously since my last visit in 1928." Inorder to attract new Jewish colonists to the Crimea region,the government decided on April 19 to exempt Jewishcolonists from delivering their wheat and milk to thegovernment. And, on February 1, it was announced thatthe indebtedness of the Jewish agricultural collectives inthe Ukraine and in other parts of Russia, which amountedto eleven million rubles (about six million dollars) had beenwritten off by Soviet decree. The sum covers loans extendedto them by up to January 1, 1935. On May 30, 1935, itwas further announced from Moscow that the governmentwould cancel 4,602,000 rubles more (approximately $2,500,-000) of the debt which the Jewish colonies established bythe Agro-Joint in Crimea. The positive effort to aid in theestablishment of Jewish collective farms has exercised anattraction for oppressed Jews in neighboring countries.

The political situation of the Jews in Russia has notchanged, but there have in the past year come certainmanifestations and reports of a disturbing nature. M.Portnoff, president of the Stalindorf Jewish autonomousregion, was expelled from the Communist Party in Aprilbecause, as the indictment read, he was favorable toTrotsky. Four Jews, all of them affirming their innocence,were among the fourteen persons executed in connectionwith the assassination of Sergei Kirov, Communist officialkilled, it was charged, by counter-revolutionary elements.Reports from Warsaw, however, that anti-Jewish riotshad taken place in Leningrad and Moscow were shown to

REVIEW OF TH E YEAR 5 695 211

be false, although there are evidences that the membershipof a large number of Jews in the opposition movement whoseleader is Leon Trotsky, exiled Bolshevik revolutionary,had caused ill-feeling.

The death of Peter Smidowitch on April 16, non-Jewishvice-president of the U.S.S.R., and chairman of the Comzet,the government bureau to settle Jews on land, was a severeblow to Soviet Jewry. He was regarded as friendly toZionists and the Hebrew language. His intervention wasbelieved to have saved the Great Synagogue in Moscowfrom destruction.

As usual, the Jewish Communist newspapers were activein stimulating the anti-religious campaign which was espe-cially fervent before Passover.

Not only has the Soviet government in the past yeartaken an increasing interest in establishing and furtheringJewish colonization, but there were also signs that thestrict disabilities imposed upon religious leaders followingthe revolution would be somewhat alleviated. A decreepublished on October 9, 1934, restored the full civic rightsof clergymen, cantors, sextons, and other religious func-tionaries formerly deprived of rights as enemies of thegovernment if they "have engaged in productive andsocially useful labor during the course of five years." Asa result of the decree, these declassed individuals, amongwhom a considerable number are Jews, may in the futurebe able to obtain bread cards as citizens, vote in Sovietelections, and will be enabled to send their children to highschools and universities.

PALESTINE

Palestine has remained a barometer of the increasingpressure of anti-Jewish tendencies throughout the world.On November 16, 1934, the government granted 9,700immigration certificates for the subsequent six monthperiod, a figure which called forth protests from the Execu-tive of the Jewish Agency which had asked for 18,600.The memorandum of the Agency pointed out that therewas an increasing shortage of Jewish labor, particularlyin the orange industry. By the end of 1934, there were, it


was estimated, 305,000 Jews in Palestine. Mr. James G.MacDonald, League of Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, reported on July 18, 1935, that 27,000 Germanrefugees had entered the country since 1932. The greatnumber of entry permits which this emigration exactedhas made it more difficult for Polish Jews to obtain visapermits to enter Palestine. The Polish Zionist Federationon December 4 protested to the Jewish Agency against theallotment of the 3,000 permits to Poland, which wasregarded as an unfair proportion.

In order to prevent illegal immigration, the Palestinepolice have made drastic efforts to,round up suspects. SirPhilip Cunliffe-Lister, British Secretary of State for theColonies, declared in the House of Commons on December5, 1934, that 627 illegal immigrants had been deportedfrom Palestine during the year 1934. The situation wasdramatically emphasized, when on February 11, 1935, onehundred illegal entrants who had been arrested for deporta-tion went on a hunger strike.

In a memorandum submitted to the Permanent MandatesCommission of the League of Nations on June 3, 1935, theJewish Agency reported that during the year 1934, a totalof $35,000,000 had been employed by Jews in order toacquire 110,970 metric dunams of land, Arabs receiving$8,240,000 for land purchased from them. During the yearalso, industrial and non-agricultural activity was increased.In a report covering the year 1934, the Palestine EconomicCorporation pointed out that "the economic situationpresents many of the attributes of a boom, carrying with itthe dangers inherent in boom conditions." This was par-ticularly noticeable in the inflation of land values. Risingrents forced the Government to fix maximum rentals, evenin rural districts. The situation was aggravated by a steadymigration of Jewish agricultural workers to the towns.Perhaps the most striking index of the growing prosperityhas been the thirty-seven percent increase in imports andtwenty-four percent increase in exports, over the precedingyear. Additional improvements have been undertaken torender the port of Jaffa more advantageous for handlingcitrus fruit exports in 1935. The consumption of electricityincreased by over sixty percent in 1934; the tonnage of


cargo discharged at Jaffa and Haifa by forty-three percent;and there were corresponding increases in agriculturalproduction. But, withal, some observers have expressedfears over the growing industrialization and heavy capital-ization of the country.

There were several other events of economic significance.Late in 1934, the High Commissioner for Palestine, SirArthur Grenfell Wauchope, announced the transfer of theHuleh concession to the Palestine Land DevelopmentCompany. The Huleh swamps exceed 55,000 dunams(11,765 acres) in area; and the drainage that is beingplanned will make available a large area of fertile soil forsettlement by colonists, both Jewish and Arab.

On January 14, 1935, the pipe line from the Mosul oilfields was officially inaugurated at Kirkuk. This greatengineering feat is about 1,200 miles long and was completedat a total cost of fifty million dollars.

Relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine havebecome more disturbed with the increased demand forJewish immigration permits and with the rise of a newnationalism, stimulated in some instances by Nazi pro-paganda. The Arabs continue to complain that thousandsof Jews are being smuggled into the country; while thecounter-charge is offered that thousands of Arabs fromSyria and Trans-Jordania cross into Palestine. Each grouphas organized forces to check the inflow of the other. OnOctober 28, 1934, the Arab Labor Federation decided toboycott Jewish enterprises because, as its leaders stated,"Jews picket places where Arab workers are employed."On January 4, 1935, Arab leaders addressing the MandatesCommission of the League threatened to "use violence toregulate the situation in Palestine." Attacks by Arabson Jews have actually taken place; four of them in theweek of May 5, 1935, including the murder of KalmanShapiro, an instructor in the National Labor Organization,arousing great concern.

Contrary to the express wishes of the Jewish leaders, thegovernment continues to favor the establishment of alegislative council and other representative institutions inPalestine. British officials are reported to be formulating


plans in this direction. On January 1, 1935, a new systemof municipal administration was put into effect, takingmost of the administrative power out of the hands of theelected mayors and councils of the cities and giving it to atown clerk appointed by the Government. This decisionwas inspired by the uncovering of a scandal involving theadministration of the former Arab Mayor of Jerusalem.On January 24, 1935, after five years' absence from theMunicipal Council of Jerusalem, six Jewish councilmentook their seats there.

That Palestine be declared a crown colony with a vieweventually to its becoming one of the British dominions,was suggested, in February 1935, by Moshe Smilansky,President of the Jewish Farmers' Association, who expressedthe view that the mandate method of the government hadfailed because it had hampered economic growth andinternational trade and had made Palestine a football ofintrigue between the great powers.

Hope that Transjordania may eventually be opened forsettlement by Jews was evoked on April 1 when the Govern-ing Council of the territory annulled the existing restrictionsagainst the sale of land to citizens of foreign nationality.However, the British administration announced throughSir Philip Cunliffe-Lister in the House of Commons onMarch 26, that "the possibility of such settlement mustdepend entirely upon local conditions and upon the adviceof the High Commissioner of Palestine."

Relations between the religious factions have not beenaltogether peaceful. On March 3, 1935, ten persons wereinjured at Tel Aviv in street clashes between religious andJews who were not observing the Sabbath, when personswho had attended a meeting of protest against non-observersof the Sabbath, smashed the windows of Jewish shopswhich were open, and stopped taxis carrying Jewish pas-sengers. Negotiations were begun in the Spring of 1935between the Vaad Leumi, the National Council of Pal-estinian Jewry, and the Central Committee of AgudathIsrael in order to establish some unity and peace in theranks of Palestinian Jewry. The necessity for unity arisesin part out of the fact that the Government wishes to be


able to speak to one authoritative body as representative ofthe Jews of Palestine. Yet, the Agudath organization, onApril 19, announced the establishment of a new JewishAgency to compete with the present body and to conductindependent political negotiations with the Governmentand the League of Nations.

Perhaps the most valuable archeological discovery ofthe year in Palestine was the unearthing of potsherds atTel Adduweir, the ancient Lachish, dating back 2,500 yearsto the time of Jeremiah and confirming biblical referencesto that period. They were examined by Professor HarryTorczyner, expert on Semitic languages in the HebrewUniversity. The twelve potsherds were discovered byJ. L. Starkey, head of the Welcome Archeological Expedition.

Documents

BY HARRY SCHNEIDERMAN AND MELVIN M. FAGEN